Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AVIATION

Civil Airports, Tees-side

Commander Kerans: asked the Minister of Aviation what prospects he has in mind for the provision of additional civil aerodromes in the Tees-side area to promote the establishment of new industries in the North East.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): The provision of aerodromes to meet the needs of Tees-side is a matter for the local authorities to consider in the first instance.

Commander Kerans: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the provision of increased facilities on Tees-side is vital to the establishment of future industries in the North-East? When these local authorities meet early in January, will he do all in his power to assist, even though it may be only for helicopter development?

Mr. Woodhouse: If the local authorities apply to my right hon. Friend for assistance, he will, of course, consider it in relation to the criteria laid down in the White Paper.

Mr. Chetwynd: As the local authorities are getting together on this, will the hon. Gentleman meet a deputation of local authorities and local Members concerned to discuss whether we can have a better arrangement for the use of Middleton St. George aerodrome, and, if necessary, use his authority with the Secretary of State for Air for this purpose?

Mr. Woodhouse: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be very willing

to meet deputations from the local authorities to discuss the matter, but, in so far as it concerns the Secretary of State for Air, I think that the question would have to be addressed to him.

Jet Aircraft (Night Flying)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Aviation what representations he has received from residents' associations and other interested parties regarding the decision to permit jet aircraft an extended use of London Airport during the night hours; and what replies he has made.

Mr. Woodhouse: A number of residents' associations, local authorities and other organisations have made representations against the regular use of Heathrow by jet aircraft at night. In reply my right hon. Friend has explained the benefits that these night flights bring to the country as a whole and the steps taken to reduce the annoyance caused to those living near the airport.

Mr. Brockway: But does the hon. Gentleman know that when we met the right hon. Gentleman in conference he indicated to us that there would be no jet flights at night except those which were delayed in their ordinary course? Is he aware that this is an appalling and utterly intolerable grievance to the people who live on the edge of the airport? Is he aware that the medical officer of Slough has said that the health of the people in those areas will be deeply affected by the disturbance at night? When is the hon. Gentleman going to think of residents in this country rather than the jet lines serving America and other territories?

Mr. Woodhouse: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend does most carefully consider the interests of residents in this country as well as those of travellers abroad. I am not sure of the date at which the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman referred took place, but, if it was of recent date, I cannot believe that my right hon. Friend said that there would be no jet flights at night.

Mr. Brockway: It was before the agreement.

Mr. Woodhouse: Yes, Sir, and since then jet aircraft have been allowed to


operate under restricted conditions at night.

Mr. Brockway: That is what we are protesting about.

Mr. Woodhouse: Such operations are still more limited in winter. As regards the medical suffering, we are advised by the medical authorities that there is no danger to health, although we entirely agree that it is a most serious annoyance.

Mr. Brockway: In view of this utterly unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Helicopters

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will now agree to the purchase of three helicopters for British European Airways in order to allow an inter-city helicopter service to be operated.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I favour the purchase of the three American Vertol 107 helicopters to allow an inter-city helicopter service to be operated in co-operation with SABENA. I am, however, discussing the terms proposed for this arrangement and B.E.A.'s future plans in relation to it before giving final approval to the purchase.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that the use of American helicopters, even with British engines, is an interim measure only until we have sufficiently adequate machines ourselves to take their place? Will he also say that we have to act quickly on this if we are to have an inter-city service both between cities in this country and on the short Continental routes?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It is just those kinds of points which I am discussing.

Aircraft Industry (Orders)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Aviation what action he is taking to avert the actual and imminent redundancy in the aircraft industry by placing suitable Government orders for civil and military aircraft.

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he is aware of increasing concern about future employment in the aircraft manufacturing industry; and whether he is now in a position to make a full statement about future Government orders.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Government spending on aircraft production is running at this moment at a rate of well over £200 million a year. With this pressure of demand any redundancy must be regarded as a natural consequence of reorganisation and rationalisation within the industry. As to future work, I have already reaffirmed the pledges to the aircraft industry announced by my predecessor and am in urgent consultation with the relevant Government Departments on the complex problems involved.

Mr. Chetwynd: Has the Minister any target in mind for the future shape of this industry? If it means any reduction, will he see that adequate planning takes place in order to avoid any undue hardship?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have ideas, which I am discussing with the industry and with my colleagues, but the point here is that the present pressure of demand is very high indeed. It is to the future that we ought to look, and to what kind of shape this industry may have, not today, but in three, four or ten years' time.

Mr. Diamond: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what views he has on the total labour force likely to be engaged in the industry in three or four years' time, as he has been indicating?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I would rather not. I have heard so many forecasts of labour positions falsified in this House that I would rather not add to them.

Later—

Mr. Hale: On a point of order. I have certainly not heard the Minister answer Question No. 19 or say that it has been dealt with with another Question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is unfortunate. He entered the Chamber while the Question with which Question No. 19 was dealt was being answered. I called the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), amongst other reasons, to give the hon. Member time.

Mr. Hale: I am very grateful to you for that explanation, Mr. Speaker. I think the whole House will agree that the answer which was given seemed to have no relevance to my Question.

Aircraft Factories (Closures)

Mr. Cordle: asked the Minister of Aviation when he was informed of the proposed closure of the de Havilland factory at Christchurch which was engaged in manufacturing the Sea Vixen airplane to Government order; and what consultations he had with the Minister of Labour and President of the Board of Trade regarding this closure, which has resulted from the ending of Government contracts.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The company has for some time made it clear publicly that it would have difficulty in maintaining employment at certain of its factories, including Christchurch. It told my Department and its workpeople as soon as its final decision was taken on 24th November. My Department has been in close touch with the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade throughout.

Mr. Cordle: Why did not my right hon. Friend make it a condition precedent to the withdrawal of the contract for the Sea Vixens that a new industry should first have been introduced to take over the factory?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think that it would be possible to treat the aircraft industry as a unique instance in this case and to say that there could never be a rationalisation or reorganisation of the industry until another factory or another industry had been introduced. I agree, on the other hand, that one should keep in the closest contact with the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade to see that a smooth transition takes place.

Sir Richard Pilkington: Has my right hon. Friend heard of any other industry in the area which might be able to absorb this redundancy, if it occurs?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am informed that the effect of the redundancy is not likely to be great. I believe that there is a later Question about alternative industry in this area.

Mr. Diamond: asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he is taking to ensure that, where aircraft factories are to close down as a result of the Government's policy of reorganisation, before workers are declared redundant alternative work is found or the factories are relet to other employers.

Mr. Thorneycroft: My Department is in constant touch with the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade on these matters. I am advised that the closure of the factories recently announced is unlikely to result in any serious or persistent unemployment.

Mr. Diamond: If the right hon. Gentleman repeats his statement that he is in constant touch, and if he has known for eighteen months that these amalgamations were likely to result in redundancy, can he be more explicit and say what action he took before the present time—he keeps on referring to "the present time"—and on what authority, or according to what information, he believes that the 4,000 men who are to be thrown out of work in Gloucester are likely to find other work before redundancy occurs?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am informed that there are other vacancies in the area. We must get this matter into perspective. Employment in the aircraft industry at the moment is rising and not falling. The fact that in a reorganisation some factories are closed while work is concentrated at others is not a disaster for the industry; it may be just plain common sense.

Mr. Strachey: I recognise that it may not be a disaster for the industry, but is it not a disaster for the people concerned, in the constituencies? The Minister has made it clear that the industry is working with £200 million of Government money. In view of that fact, have not the Government an obligation, as well as the capacity, to see that the work is directed to places where it is socially necessary?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I would not agree that this is an area in which there is such a vast degree of unemployment that it is necessary to direct industry to it.

Mr. Diamond: asked the Minister of Aviation what change of Government policy he has recently communicated to the directors of the Hawker-Siddeley Group, or to the directors of the Whitworth-Gloucester Aviation Company, as a result of which Government orders for aircraft will no longer be sufficient to keep that company's factories at both Coventry and Gloucester fully engaged.

Mr. Thorneycroft: None, Sir.

Mr. Diamond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not entirely astonished at his reply? Is he nevertheless aware that whereas the company issued a statement a mere three months ago saying that when this amalgamation took place it would strengthen the Gloucester Aviation Company and the tenure of employment by its employees, the firm's latest statement is to the effect that as a result of Government policy there is no longer sufficient work for the Gloucester factories?

Mr. Thorneycroft: We must be quite plain about this. There has been no change in Government policy as announced by my predecessor in respect of the nature of Government support and so forth. The hon. Member would do well to distinguish between the present very heavy load of work on Government orders—the millions of pounds that are still being spent in the industry and the orders which are still there—and the quite separate question of decisions on future projects, to which I attach considerable importance.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will the Minister bear in mind that this help is extremely patchy, and that, whereas in some areas there is redundancy, in other areas similar firms making similar aircraft are asking for labour?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that is so. It is a commercial decision for Hawkers to see how best it can distribute the load of work within this newly re-organised industry. There would be no point in the House approving a re-organisation of this kind unless something of that nature happened.

Scotland

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he is

taking to maintain air services to Aberdeen and the north of Scotland.

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Aviation what action he is taking to ensure the maintenance of air services in the north of Scotland.

Mr. J. MacLeod: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the future of air services in the north of Scotland.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Minister of Aviation if the services being run by British European Airways north of Edinburgh and Glasgow are to be subject to contraction.

Mr. N. McLean: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will make a statement on the future development of air services in Scotland north of Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Mr. Woodhouse: These services are being maintained by B.E.A. and I am not aware of any proposals affecting their future which at present call for action on my part.

Mr. Hughes: May I take that answer as meaning that there will be no diminution in the services which have hitherto existed? Will there be any extension of those services in the near future?

Mr. Woodhouse: These are both matters for the air operators.

Mr. MacLeod: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is essential to the development of this rather neglected area that we should maintain and extend these services for the future well-being of the area?

Mr. Woodhouse: I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks will be noted by B.E.A. and other operators. The Government cannot undertake to subsidise air services, but they make a considerable contribution to the maintenance of the northern Scottish airports.

Mr. Grimond: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that any large reduction in these services will be very serious for the whole area? Will he look into two points? First, is he aware that it is a common complaint that one cannot get bookings on these services in the summer? Secondly, would it not be possible by a slight alteration, perhaps, in his


own Ministry's regulations, to make these services rather more economical, bearing in mind the type of area they serve?

Mr. Woodhouse: I should be very glad to consider any suggestions hon. Members may make for more economical services, but the responsibility for the conduct of the services remains with the operators.

Mr. Strachey: Does the hon. Member think that it is any use asking B.E.A. to keep these matters in mind if, at the same time, large sections of remunerative routes are taken away from B.E.A.? How can it be expected to run the unremunerative routes while facing encroachments in the case of the remunerative ones?

Mr. Woodhouse: B.E.A. has been running these unremunerative services for a long time, and the encroachments to which the right hon. Member has referred do not entail any diminution in the future, as the Licensing Board has put forward in its arguments.

Air Tours

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will take steps to ensure that organisers of inclusive air tours include in their tour programmes the name of the airport to which passengers are to be flown.

Mr. Woodhouse: This is a matter for the Air Transport Licensing Board which, I understand, is already considering the point.

Air Traffic Census

Mr. C. Johnson: asked the Minister of Aviation when the proposed census of air traffic over Great Britain and the surrounding waters will take place; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Thorneycroft: From today until midnight on 10th December. I will, with the permission of the House, circulate an account of the objects and methods of the census in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Johnson: Can the right hon. Member say how long it will be before the results of the census are known? Secondly, when they are known will they be published?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I should like to consider both those questions—but if there is some useful information which I can give to the House on this subject I shall be very happy to do so.

Following is the statement:
The object of the census is to provide a factual record of the quantity and nature of civil traffic throughout our airspace and the information will be used for the planning of future air traffic control services. Special census cards have been issued to the owners of all British aircraft who have been asked to record the position, height and activity of their aircraft if it flies in United Kingdom airspace during the census period. Special arrangements have been made to give census cards to the crews of foreign aircraft who visit this country during census week. Information about traffic flying in controlled airspace and on other established civil routes will be obtained from the records kept by the Air Traffic Control Service.
The census has the active support of those associations which represent the interests of aircraft owners and pilots, and I hope the individual owners will co-operate fully in this venture, the aim of which is to increase the safety of all users of United Kingdom airspace.
It is expected that censuses of this kind will be held at approximately six-monthly intervals.

London Airport (Paraffin Fumes)

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he is taking or proposes to take about the nuisance to residents near London Airport caused by the discharge of burnt paraffin fumes.

Mr. Woodhouse: Much of the nuisance arises from aircraft running at low power in or near the north terminal. When the north terminal is closed next year conditions should be much better. The airlines have built sound barriers in the maintenance areas and more are being built. These help to deflect fumes from residential areas.

Mr. Skeffington: Apart from the position of the aircraft, is it proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary that there should be other remedies? Will he bear in mind that many of my constituents not only have their nights spoilt by noise but now have their days and nights spoilt by obnoxious smells? Would he give an assurance that the matter is being seriously considered?

Mr. Woodhouse: Yes, Sir. The matter is being considered seriously and research into the problem is being carried


out now by two aircraft firms, Rolls-Royce and Bristol-Siddeley, and by the National Gas Turbine Establishment, But I cannot hold out strong hopes of an early solution.

Independent Operators (Licences)

Mr. Strachey: asked the Minister of Aviation if, when he negotiates with foreign Government in respect of the air traffic rights necessary to implement the licences granted by the Air Transport Licensing Board to independent operators to enable them to fly to foreign destinations, he will ensure that those rights are not granted at the expense of traffic rights at present granted to British European Airways on those routes.

Mr. Thorneycroft: In all my negotiations with foreign Governments my concern is to obtain the best possible deal for all British air transport operations.

Mr. Strachey: Unless the Minister is prepared to give an affirmatory answer to my Question, is not it clear that he is contemplating the direct transfer of traffic rights from B.E.A. to another British-owned firm, and what possible gain to the country can there be in that?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that a rather narrow interpretation of the Air Transport Licensing legislation.

Tradair Limited

Mr. Strachey: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he is aware that a pilot employed by Tradair Ltd. was offered the alternative of demotion or resignation as a consequence of his cancellation of a flight from Pisa to Perpignan at 16.30 hours on 6th October, 1961, and of two other incidents in which the operator considered that he should have flown at a time when the pilot thought for safety reasons that he should not; whether he is satisfied that his safety regulations are adequate to ensure that a pilot should not be penalised for caution; and what action he proposes to take for the safety of the travelling public.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I understand that a writ in an action for libel has been issued in this case and, in the circumstances, the House may feel that it should be regarded as sub judice. In-

vestigations have, however, shown nothing requiring action on safety grounds. My Director of Aviation Safety has adequate powers in connection with the operator's certificate if action were necessary.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely this is one of the most extraordinary statements that we have ever heard; that when Parliament entrusts both regulations and investigations as to safety to a Minister of the Crown the safety of the flying public can be suspended by the issue of a writ in a libel action. I have never heard of such a proposition.

Mr. Speaker: My view about it is this. I have only read in the newspapers that a writ has been issued against the writer of the letter to the right hon. Gentleman for damages for defamation. I heard what the Minister said, and my view is that in those circumstances it would be right that the House should not expect any answer to this Question, down to the end of the matters relating to the pilot, that is, down to a colon or a semi-colon. I think that the Minister gave some answer with regard to the rest of the Question, but that is my view as to the extent covered by the sub judice rule.

Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a civil action a writ for libel may be issued and no further step taken for many months. Even though it be prosecuted with vigour, the action may not be heard for twelve months and the House has no knowledge of issues being raised which may be substantially different from the question which affects the House. My right hon. Friend is seeking to ask a Question which involves the safety of transport by charter plane, and the whole question—which is obviously one of deep concern to the House at the moment—of whether charter planes are subject to regulations as to the transport of passengers which makes pilots have to take unnecessary risks. If we cannot quote an example, if everyone referring to the point is regarded as raising a point which is sub judice because of a civil action, the House will be deprived of the whole of its control over the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I can assure the hon. Member that I have considered all the factors which he has just mentioned before giving my Ruling. But I have no authority from the House to dispense with the application of our rule. I have considered what I have said, and I abide by it.

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. Are not there two different questions arising here? One is the grievance which Tradair Ltd. may have with Wing Commander James. That is sub judice. But there is the authority and duty of the Minister to hold inquiries with regard to safety. Those inquiries which are the concern of the general public are a matter between the Minister and Tradair Ltd. and the Minister and the House. That, in my submission, is an entirely different matter, and we certainly should be in a position to press or to require the Minister to carry out an inquiry into safety regardless of any writ which may be issued in a quarrel between Tradair Ltd. and my right hon. Friend's correspondent.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has appreciated what I said. I think that the issue of a writ in this case, and I say so, makes it inadvisable for the House to discuss matters relating to this pilot which clearly arise in the case in the ordinary way. I did not say anything about the rest of the Question regarding safety and matters of that kind.

Mr. McAdden: Further to that point of order. It is within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that this matter was the subject of a debate a week ago and on that occasion certain damaging statements were made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) which are now the subject of legal questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. Presumably this matter, as you rightly ruled, is sub judice. On the other question, the question of safety operations, for which the Minister has an undoubted responsibility through his Director of Aircraft Safety, the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that a straightforward answer was given in another place and has been repeated here.

Mr. Speaker: There was no resemblance to a point of order in the latter

part of the hon. Gentleman's question. With regard to the first part, it was a mis-statement of my Ruling.

Mr. Strachey: Addressing myself to the latter part of my Question to the Minister. Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied that safety regulations have worked effectively for the protection of the travelling public? In the circumstances which arose on 6th October, in which one unfortunate pilot and 34 lives—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether he agrees with it or not, I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to follow my Ruling, which is that we ought not to discuss those incidents.

Mr. Strachey: With respect, Mr. Speaker, surely you are not suggesting that we cannot discuss any incidents of the safety of the public flying in chartered aircraft because one charter company has brought a libel action, or is about to do so, against one individual? Surely, though you may have said that it would be inadvisable, it is not improper or impossible for the House to raise these matters which we think prima facie and absolutely indispensable to the safety to the travelling public? May I not ask the Minister, therefore, whether he is satisfied that these regulations in reference to these two incidents, in which one flight was cancelled and one was not cancelled to Perpignan on 6th October last, do not amount to a prima facie case for an inquiry, which is what we are pressing for—a public inquiry into this incident?

Mr. Speaker: I imagine that inevitably in this action, if it be tried, among the issues which would have to be tried out are what was the nature of that incident and what, if any, connection did it have with whatever happened to the pilot, and so on and so forth. I cannot see how our rule regarding sub judice can be applied in such a way as to avoid that consequence. That is my difficulty.

Mr. Paget: All I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this. Is not it in the interests both of Tradair Ltd. and of British aviation as a whole that the incident which has undoubtedly shaken public confidence to the extent that this one has should be investigated publicly


as to its safety aspect, and has not the right hon. Gentleman authority to order that investigation?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am concerned not so much with Tradair Ltd. or even with civil aviation. I am concerned with the interests of the public. I have said, therefore, in answer to the latter part of the Question that investigations have satisfied me that there is no action which I am required to take on safety grounds.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, is not the sub judice aspect of this case a most unusual one, in the sense that it would probably not have arisen had not my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) raised the issue in the House last week? One can quite appreciate that, if independent legal proceedings are going on outside the House, we ought not to discuss such a matter in a prejudicial way, but in this case it would seem that a discussion in the House has lead to the institution of legal proceedings, because of the reading of a letter protected by privilege here but not outside. Is it not undesirable that the House should be prevented from following up something which has been raised in the House?

Mr. Speaker: It may be undesirable or desirable; I do not know. What brings the rule into operation is the issue of the writ in respect of the letter. I cannot get out of that.

B.E.A. (Uneconomic Routes)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will give a general direction to British European Airways to cease to operate uneconomic routes.

Mr. Thorneycroft: These are matters best left to the judgment of the Corporation.

Mr. Hynd: Now that the Corporation is losing a lot of its remunerative traffic to private companies, is it going to be expected to carry on these more uneconomic routes and thereby lay itself open to the criticism that it is a nationalised industry which is losing money?

Mr. Thorneycroft: These are interesting matters, but as I have never

directed the Corporation to operate uneconomic routes, I do not see why I should direct it not to operate them.

Sir A. V. Harvey: In view of the controversy over these routes, will my right hon. Friend consider allowing some independent operators to take over some of the uneconomic routes in Scotland and at the same time allow them to take on rather more lucrative services, thus giving a better service to the public?

Mr. Thorneycroft: In the first instance this would be a matter for an application to the Air Transport Licensing Board.

Mr. John MacLeod: My right hon. Friend will recall that B.E.A. took over from private enterprise which was doing quite well on the Inverness routes, and it therefore has a very serious obligatio to keep these services going and to extend them.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am not stopping the Corporation.

Mr. Hale: Is not this Question at the moment sub judice by the Minister? Is it not a fact that an appeal has been lodged and the Minister in a quasi-judicial capacity is having to sit and arbitrate on these matters under the practice introduced by his predecessor? Is it not particularly undersirable that he should be expressing these views at the moment?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to issue that warning to the House. I think that my quasi-judicial position should be respected in this matter.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will now provide suitable financial assistance to British European Airways in respect of unremunerative services for the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will now introduce legislation to finance from Government sources the losses necessarily incurred by British European Airways in providing air services on the domestic routes, in accordance with the recommendation of the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries of Session 1958–59.

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. In the absence of any proposal on this matter from B.E.A. I would regard the question as hypothetical.

Dr. Mahon: Is the Minister aware that both the Chief Executive, Mr. Milward, and Lord Douglas of Kirtle-side have stated in the Press that, if the independent operators are allowed to have these routes, B.E.A. will be obliged to seek financial assistance from the Government? Is he further aware that the estimate that I have is that a loss of about £6 million was incurred by B.E.A. in operating these routes over the last 16 years? The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries recommended—I want to know if the Minister will persuade his Government colleagues to accept this recommendation—that the best way of financing uneconomic routes placed by obligation on nationalised Corporations is by an outright direct Government grant.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Many things appear in the public Press, but I have enough money to find where requests have been made for it without putting it in where no request has come forward.

Mr. Strachey: When the Minister reviews the applications and the licences, will he bear in mind that one of the things which makes it possible for B.E.A. to operate these uneconomic routes is the profit it makes after building up the trunk internal routes, and that it is very unfair to take the advantage from the Corporation but maintain the obligation on it to operate uneconomic lines?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will take note of the right hon. Gentleman's view.

Independent Operators (Licences)

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Aviation whether, in view of the change in the prospects of world civil aviation since the passing of the Civil Aviation Licensing Act, 1960, he will introduce amending legislation prohibiting the Air Transport Licensing Board from granting licences to applicants for permission to operate on routes already covered by British European Airways and British Overseas Airways Corporation.

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir.

Mr. Strauss: Is the Minister aware that the recent decision by the Board is stated by the Board to be on the assumption that competition must sooner or later become a feature of the routes over which British aviation operates? Is he further aware that under the terms of the Act the Board is not entitled to make this assumption? Nor was this argument ever advanced by the Minister of Aviation during the passage of the Bill through the House. Is not the Board's recent verdict based entirely on an unwarranted premise?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Civil Aviation Licensing Act, 1960, is only just beginning to come into operation in conditions of certain controversy on all sides. I think that we should allow it to operate a little before we start to amend it.

Mr. Strauss: Will the Minister be good enough to answer my question about the basis on which the Board made its recent decision and which it stated to be the basis, which has nothing to do with the Act or anything that the Minister said during the passage of the Bill through the House?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon Gentleman's Question asks me whether I will introduce amending legislation. The answer is, "No, Sir".

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Aviation whether, in order to reduce the financial losses which British European Airways will have to bear as a result of the diversion of its traffic to private operators, he will relieve the Corporation of the payment of all fees normally chargeable in the airports under his control.

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir.

Mr. Strauss: In view of the Government's recent decision to give every nationalised industry a target profit figure, can he tell us how he proposes to deal with the very substantial losses which are bound to accrue to B.E.A. as a result of the recent decisions of the Licensing Board? What alternative means has he in mind?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Even if I were satisfied, which I am not, that a sharing of the future expansion of traffic would or could be said to involve B.E.A.


in a loss, on which I do not want to express a view because it might be the subject of an appeal or be used in argument in an appeal, I am satisfied that doing away with landing fees would be a wholly inappropriate way of dealing with it.

Mr. Strauss: Has the Minister any alternative suggestions, in view of the certainty that some substantial losses will accrue?

Mr. Thorneycroft: As I have sought to show, I regard the whole question as hypothetical.

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Aviation what appeal has been made by British European Airways against the decision of the Air Transport Licensing Board to grant licences to private companies to operate services on routes now being profitably operated by British European Airways.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: asked the Minister of Aviation (1) what appeal has been received from British European Airways against the decision of the Air Transport Licensing Board to grant a licence to British United Airways to operate a service between Great Britain and Paris;

(2) what appeal he has received from British European Airways against the decision of the Air Transport Licensing Board to grant a licence to British United Airways to operate a service between Great Britain and Amsterdam.

Mr. Thorneycroft: None. Sir.

Mr. Hynd: As it is understood that an appeal is coming along, will the Minister bear in mind the possible disastrous effects on B.E.A. of the granting of these new licences to other companies?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have not received an appeal, and even if I had it would be quite inappropriate for me to express a view about it.

Turnhouse Airport, Edinburgh

Mr. Stodart: asked the Minister of Aviation when he expects work to be completed on the buildings of Turn-house Airport, Edinburgh.

Mr. Woodhouse: February, 1962.

Mr. Stodart: Is my hon. Friend aware that these buildings were to be ready under specification at the end of last July, that it was said in the House on 24th July that they would be substantially finished by the end of August, but that at the moment the Customs, arrival and departure bays are not ready? Is not this an example of considerable mismanagement somewhere?

Mr. Woodhouse: The main reasons for the delay have been the late delivery of materials and the shortage of skilled labour in the neighbourhood. We have been doing all we can to expedite the completion of the work as soon as possible, and I cannot do more.

Mr. Stodart: asked the Minister of Aviation what plans he has for providing better facilities for passengers arriving by car at Turnhouse Airport, Edinburgh.

Mr. Woodhouse: Improvements carried out this year at Turnhouse Airport which have doubled the space available for car parking are sufficient to meet the estimated requirement for, at least, the next eighteen months.

Mr. Stodart: Is my hon. Friend aware that at many airports facilities are such that passengers can be put down first and cars proceed afterwards to the parking bays, whereas at Turnhouse Airport congestion is caused by tickets having to be obtained for the parking area before passengers are set down? Can he not arrange for this airport to be brought into line with others?

Mr. Woodhouse: Different airports certainly have different facilities, but the parking arrangements at this airport are regarded as adequate for the foreseeable traffic.

Cunard Eagle Airways, Ltd.

Mr. Burden: asked the Minister of Aviation (1) to what extent, when he came to the conclusion that British Overseas Airways Corporation had sufficient aircraft commitments to absorb all traffic increases for the next five or six years on all the routes they are operating, he took into account the fact that the growth in the capacity ton miles flown by the Corporation was from 245 millions in 1954–55 to 667 millions in

(2) whether, before granting the appeal of the British Overseas Airways Corporation against the decision of the Air Transport Licensing Board to grant a licence to Cunard Eagle Airways, Limited, as the result of an application hearing which opened on 16th May, 1961, he took into consideration the fact that the Corporation contractually ordered three Boeing 707 aircraft while the hearing was actually in progress.

Mr. Thorneycroft: In reaching my decision, I took account of all the evidence provided by the parties both at the Board hearing and at the hearing of the appeal before the Commissioner, which covers all matters to which the hon. Member refers and many others also. In reply to the latter part of Question No. 34, the hon. Member's figure for 1954–55 should be 205 millions capacity ton miles and the comparable figure for 1965–66 is expected to be of the order of 1,250 million.

Mr. Burden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the figures were taken from the B.O.A.C. accounts and that if they are wrong then B.O.A.C.'s figures are incorrect and not mine? On the second point, my right hon. Friend has assessed that the growth over the next five years will be comparable with that of the last five years. As my right hon. Friend said earlier in answer to a question that the sharing of expansion should bring no loss to B.O.A.C., then why, in view of the enormous expansion he has said is likely by 1965, has he not allowed Cunard-Eagle to take at least its share of the Atlantic traffic expansion?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am not criticising my hon. Friend; I am only trying to give the best figures available. As to the details of the appeal, I have already set out the reasons fully, the House debated it for a full day and it is, of course, impossible to deal with it by way of question and answer.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will the right hon. Gentleman not let the direct interests of the hon. Gentleman behind him cloud the clear judgment which he showed on the Cunard case when he comes to the applications now before him?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not allow anything to cloud my views.

Mr. Diamond: When the right hon. Gentleman came to that decision, was it a decision for the time being or for all time with regard to that particular route?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It was a decision on that particular appeal and on that appeal only.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Group Practice Centres

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Health whether he will take power to provide local health authorities with statutory powers to enable them to contribute towards the capital cost of doctors' group practice centres.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Enoch Powell): No, Sir.

Mr. Snow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it may be medically desirable to establish group practices in order to cover the widest areas and that the capital required for property or buildings is far beyond the capabilities of an ordinary G.P. or a group of G.P.s to provide? Will he take another look into the case about which I have been corresponding with the Staffordshire local health authority?

Mr. Powell: There are available powers both for the Group Practice Loans Committee to make loans and for the local authorites to build centres including practice premises. I am aware of the particular problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I believe that it can be solved without legislation, and a suggestion has been made to the local authority.

Mr. K. Robinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the group practice loans schemes cover loans for property for these purposes?

Mr. Powell: Yes.

Birth Control Pills

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Health whether birth control pills can be prescribed under the National Health Service.

Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ridley: Can my right hon. Friend confirm or deny that these pills can cost up to 17s. a month if prescribed? In view of this, will the Minister not lay down and publish very careful instructions as to when they may be used, since the prescribing of these pills could cost a lot of money if not controlled on medical grounds?

Mr. Powell: It is not for me to indicate to doctors what they should decide, for medical reasons, to prescribe for their patients.

Mr. Lipton: Is it left to the doctor to decide whether these pills shall be prescribed both for married and single women?

Mr. Powell: It is always for the individual doctor to decide in each case what are the medical requirements.

Medical Students

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Health whether he has now revised the estimates of the number of medical students required to be trained in the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Grey: asked the Minister of Health if he has completed his review of the data and calculations which underlie the estimates in the Willink Committee's Report; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to meet the increasing shortage of doctors, especially in registrar grades and below and in general practice; and if he will consider the establishment of additional undergraduate teaching hospitals.

Mr. Powell: I would refer the hon. Members to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill), on 29th November.

Mr. Boyden: While being grateful for small mercies, did the right hon. Gentleman read the article in the Lancet of September, 1960, in which two prominent medical statisticians stated that between 1955 and 1960 we were 1,400 doctors short and that between 1960 and 1965—at the present rate—we shall be

1,500 short? Is he not aware that 10 per cent. of Willink is a very poor effort, and will he do two things; firstly, publish the evidence by which they arrived at this new figure, and, secondly, have urgent consultations with the University Grants Committee concerning the setting up of new medical schools?

Mr. Powell: That question regarding the University Grants Committee is not for me but for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The problem here was to revise the data and assumptions on which the Willink Committee Report—which the hon. Member will remember was accepted by the profession as well as the Government—was based. The result of that is what I gave in the reply to my hon. Friend last week.

Mr. Grey: Is the Minister aware of the serious miscalculation of the Willink Committee? Will he be more precise and say what led it to recommend that there should be a 10 per cent. reduction in the number of medical students? The present shortage of doctors is due to that recommendation, and I submit that, because of the seriousness of this, it is surprising that the Government could have been so easily misled. I support the claim of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden) and urge the Minister to rectify the position and to have more medical schools built.

Mr. Powell: Any present shortage of doctors cannot be due to the Willink Committee's recommendations, since students who entered since those recommendations would not yet have qualified, and, in fact, nothing like the full reduction recommended by the Willink Committee has been made. The question concerning medical schools is not for me but for the University Grants Committee.

Mr. Robinson: Surely the Minister appreciates that merely to restore a cut that should never have been made in the first place is hopelessly inadequate to meet the present emergency. Will he press the medical schools to take in students up to the maximum capacity, and will he discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the problem of establishing at least two or three additional medical schools?

Mr. Powell: The question of the number of students to be taken into medical schools is not one for me, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. The hon. Gentleman will have seen from my reply last week that my conclusions and those of the Secretary of State for Scotland have been drawn to the attention of the University Grants Committee through the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Cosmetic Operations

Mr. Abse: asked the Minister of Health whether he will introduce legislation to prevent unregistered medical practitioners carrying on cosmetic operations for such purposes as remodelling busts, straightening and shortening noses, removal of pouches under the eyes, and correcting obtruding ears, in view of the disfigurement and danger to health which may result from this class of operation.

Mr. Powell: No, Sir.

Mr. Abse: Is the Minister aware that there are in existence beauty bureaux sending out advertisements publicly inviting people to have all these operations performed upon them, that the operations are performed by quacks and people who have never had any medical qualifications whatever, and there is ample evidence that they cause serious harm? Does the Minister not consider it a very unsatisfactory position that, whereas a person cannot obtain spectacles except from a registered optician, or dental treatment except from a registered dentist, it is possible for anyone with impunity to wield a surgeon's scalpel with very serious results?

Mr. Powell: I have no evidence of harmful effects from the kind of treatment the hon. Member has mentioned, but if he will let me have the evidence to which he has referred I shall look into it.

Mr. Hale: Could I get my bust re-modelled under the National Health Service?

Mr. Powell: If there were considered to be clinical grounds for doing so.

Medical Research (Children)

Mr. Mathew: asked the Minister of Health (1) how many controlled clinical experiments in the

interests of medical research have been carried out on mentally subnormal children in the last 12 months; and

(2) what experiments with the new measles vaccine, tested in this country on severely mentally subnormal children, have been carried out; and if any of the vaccinated subjects suffered ill effects, other than the contraction of measles.

Mr. Powell: A measles vaccine was given to a group of patients at the Fountain Hospital and Queen Mary's Hospital, Carshalton, before an anticipated outbreak of measles. There were no ill effects apart from the reactions of modified measles. Otherwise, I am not aware of any controlled clinical experiments apart from those connected with research into subnormality.

Mr. Mathew: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that if these experiments are to be carried out at all, and in a number of cases there have been very undesirable side effects such as high fever, preferably they should be carried out on volunteers rather than on mentally defective children?

Mr. Powell: The parents had been asked and gave consent in writing. Subnormal children are particularly liable to measles and, therefore, this test was particularly relevant to subnormal children.

Captain Elliot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have discussed this matter with the senior medical officer of this hospital and he has assured me that there were no bad side effects and the only thing suffered was a slight rise in temperature and a very slight measles rash?

Mr. Powell: That coincides with my information.

Drugs (Prices)

Mr. Thorpe: asked the Minister of Health on what date he expects it will be possible to procure the antibiotics Tetracycline, Chlortetracycline, Oxy-tetracycline and Chloramphenicol for National Health Service prescriptions at the same price as is now being paid by his Department when purchasing these drugs for the hospital service.

Mr. Powell: I would hope that the terms of supply to the general pharmaceutical services will be influenced by the price to the hospital service; but there are a number of differences which make direct comparison impossible.

Mr. Thorpe: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that during the debate on the Public Accounts Committee Reports last Thursday—which he was courteous enough to attend—views were expressed from all quarters of the House that drugs purchased by the National Health Service should be at the lowest obtainable price? Is he aware that his action on 2nd October was warmly welcomed and allowed hospitals to buy drugs sometimes at one-third of the price charged by American subsidiaries in this country but that his dispensation relates only to 15 per cent. of the drugs used in this country? Will he bear in mind that by allowing chemists to purchase at the same price he would save £2 million or £3 million in the drug bill and smash the very unpleasant monopoly racket among American subsidiaries of drug firms in this country?

Mr. Powell: I believe that the steps which the Government took were both wise and necessary, but I must point out that drugs have always been supplied to the hospital service on more favourable terms than generally for obvious reasons. That is the reason why I cannot give the comparison which is asked for in this Question.

Mr. K. Robinson: If the Minister's hopes are not realised, would it not be possible for him to vary his contract with the chemists so as to require them to purchase these four drugs through him for the purpose of dispensing National Health Service prescriptions?

Mr. Powell: I would have to consider whether I have statutory powers for that, but I shall certainly watch continuously and closely the effect of the current procedure.

Motor Tricycles

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health if he will seek powers to provide a small car for married couples instead of two powered tricycles in cases

where both husband and wife are eligible for, or have already been provided with, such tricycles by his Department.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): No, Sir.

Mr. Johnson: Is it not the case that there must be very few married couples indeed who each have an individual powered tricycle? Would not the cost of replacing them by a small car be very small? Is it not quite absurd to see two people setting out on a journey together each on a separate tricycle when they might go in a small car with no greater loss to public funds?

Miss Pitt: There are, in fact, a number of married couples who each qualify for a tricycle, but the provision of cars has been traditionally part of the preferential treatment for war pensioners, and I am afraid that my right hon. Friend cannot make any exceptions.

Mr. Snow: Is the hon. Lady aware that the idea that only war disabled persons should receive these cars is thoroughly out-of-date and does not commend itself to people who have as good a right as many ex-Service men?

Miss Pitt: I am afraid I do not argee with the hon. Member. I think there is still a general feeling that war pensioners deserve preferential treatment.

Mr. Marshall: In view of the questions which have been put to my hon. Friend, could she say how much this proposal would cost?

Miss Pitt: It would be cheaper to supply a car than two tricycles, but what I think my hon. Friends forget in looking at this picture—I realise the sympathy it commands—is that if there were only one car for two people there would be a lesser degree of mobility for the two disabled persons.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to arrange for the gradual replacement of power-propelled tricycles provided for National Health Service patients by two-seater cars as supplied to the war-disabled; and what would be the aggregate cost.

Miss Pitt: No, Sir. The latest estimate of cost was given in a reply by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) on 2nd May, 1960.

Mr. Robinson: Is the hon. Lady not aware that the Minister's predecessor expressed a wish that this extension of provision should be made at some time? Is she aware that the provision of the single-seater tricycles frequently leads to domestic difficulties, particularly in the case of seriously disabled mothers with children, whom they can never take out? Will she indicate whether this proposal has any priority in her Department?

Miss Pitt: I have nothing to add to what was said in the debate we held last year.

Mr. S. Silverman: Could the hon. Lady explain a little further one of the previous answers she gave? I understood her to say at one point that the difficulty was that cars were reserved for war pensioners but at another point she seemed to be saying that it was better to have two tricycles than one car. Why, then, penalise the war pensioners?

Miss Pitt: I answered that in reply to a previous question.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Boundary Park Hospital, Oldham

Mr Hale: asked the Minister of Health when the plans of the new wards W.2 and W.3 of Boundary Park Hospital, Oldham, were submitted to his department; when they were approved; and what was the capital cost involved.

Miss Pitt: Regional hospital boards are not required to submit plans of minor works; the cost of work on these wards was £14,000 and £17,500, respectively.

Mr. Hale: Will the Parliamentary Secretary consult her right hon. Friend about this matter? Will she point out to him that he is usually courteous to the hon. Member for Oldham, West, that the hon. Member for Oldham, West asked questions about the continued disuse of these wards at the end of the last Session and that apparently com-

munications, directives or advice, are at the moment being submitted to the local hospitals board about the continued disuse of these wards, and would the right hon. Gentleman be so kind as to keep the hon. Member for Oldham, West informed?

Miss Pitt: My right hon. Friend promised the hon. Gentleman in a reply to a previous Question that he would write to him. My right hon. Friend kept that promise and wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 4th August telling him that a visiting team was going to this hospital. That has taken place. My right hon. Friend has just received the comments of the hospital management committee and the regional board on the team's report, and I have no doubt that when he is able my right hon. Friend will communicate again with the hon. Gentleman.

Nurses

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Health how many part-time nurses are now employed in the hospital service; what percentage they form of the nursing staff; and what further measures he proposes to take to increase the nursing strength of the hospital service.

Miss Pitt: There were 45,445 at 31st March, 1961, estimated to represent in whole-time equivalents about 16 per cent. of the total. My right hon. Friend has recently given guidance to hospitals about increasing their numbers.

Mr. Boyden: Will the Minister take greater efforts to communicate to the hospitals the very good schemes that are going on in some hospitals concerning the employment of part-time staff? Did he read the article in the Nursing Mirror last August in which two or three excellent schemes were described, and will he bring those to the notice of hospitals which do not have such schemes?

Miss Pitt: We endeavour to make known all the schemes which have brought results in other areas. I am chairman of the Nurses' and Midwives' Consultative Committee. Views from all over the country are exchanged and my Department has produced a memorandum containing many of the points of general helpfulness concerning the recruiting of part-time nurses.

Mr. D. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to build up the recruiting drive for nurses, especially in the Sheffield region.

Miss Pitt: Recruitment is primarily the responsibility of the employing authorities. Those in the Sheffield region are making intensive efforts, which my right hon. Friend supports by providing material and giving widespread publicity to nursing as a career.

Mr. Griffiths: Although the Parliamentary Secretary says there is widespread support and publicity in this matter, that is not enough. We are not getting the nurses. There is not sufficient inducement to people to come into this noble profession. Although the standard of living of nurses is much greater than when I first remember them, it ought to be much better. Is the Parliamentary Secretary and her right hon. Friend aware of the amount of suffering which is imposed on people treated as out-patients because beds are empty through the insufficiency of nursing staff?

Miss Pitt: The latest available figures for the recruitment of nurses up to March this year—the latest date for which we have them—show that they are at the highest level, both nationally and in Sheffield.

Mr. Griffiths: But still they are not enough.

Broadmoor Institution (Escapes)

Mr. van Staubenzee: asked the Minister of Health whether he will now make a statement on the escape of John Slater and Brian Smith from Broadmoor Institution on 25th October, 1961.

Mr. Powell: These patients escaped on the evening of 25th October and were retaken next morning. An immediate inquiry was held and instructions have been given for additional security measures including certain structural alterations and increased search of patients after seeing visitors.

Mr. van Straubenzee: While I am obliged to my right hon. Friend, may I ask him if he can tell the House whether the implement used by one of the patients who escaped has subsequently

been found? Secondly, does he not consider that the searching of patients after they have received visitors is a very elementary precaution which ought to have been brought in long ago?

Mr. Powell: As far as I am aware the implement has not been found, and it is not established that it was in fact brought in by a visitor, but it has hitherto been the practice to search those under maximum security arrangements at Broadmoor after seeing visitors. That is what is to be extended.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. A. Henderson: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal if he will answer Question No. 83. Since that Question was tabled, the situation in the Congo has seriously deteriorated and grave accusations have been made against the Government by Dr. O'Brien—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows the limits within which I can help an hon. Member in these circumstances. All I can say is that I have not received any request from the Minister to answer that Question at the end of Questions.

OFFICIAL REPORT (THURSDAY, 30th NOVEMBER)

Mr. Hirst: On a point of Order. On Thursday last, during business questions, having caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, I asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House a question referring to the Motion standing in my name and the names of other hon. Members—Motion No. 16—dealing with anthrax precautions.
When I had been given an answer from my right hon. Friend, I rose, thinking that I had caught your eye, and started a supplementary question. I had said one sentence before I realised that you had called not me, but, instead, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. In column 628 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 30th November, only half that sentence is printed, and not the complete sentence. It was quite clearly heard by many hon. Members on both sides of the House, in spite of a little bit of noise and it was confirmed to the OFFICIAL REPORT.
I see printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT the following words:
MR. HIRST: Yes, but is not my right hon. Friend aware—"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 628.]
There it stops, whereas I went on to say—
that the Motion is one of censure?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman was thwarted, but there was a little difficulty because 1 had unwittingly thwarted the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition at the moment when I called the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. G. Hirst). I do not think that we can go back to it now. The hon. Gentleman was asking that question when he had not been called, and in the circumstances did not complete it. I do not think that he can ask it now. Had he risen again during business questions, the position would have been different.

Mr. Hirst: Further to that point of order. I do not question your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I do not desire to ask the question now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I have no desire to ask that Question now. I am rising to a point of order purely and simply for information on how we are to correct the OFFICIAL REPORT. Fortunately or unfortunately, I do not know which it is, comments are made and reported quite often when right hon. and hon. Members are not specifically called, such as interjections and interruptions. I only seek your guidance, Sir, on how one can have the OFFICIAL REPORT corrected.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I followed the hon. Gentleman in precisely what he wants to correct. I misunderstood what he was trying to do. If he likes to tell me of a verbal error in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and he will see me privately, I will do my best to put it right.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Thorpe: May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Two Questions have been asked today by hon. Members relating to the affairs of a particular company. I am not interested in the company or the identity of the hon.

Member. It so happens that the hon. Member was a director of that company.
As I apprehend it, the principle to be followed when a speech is made is that an interest has to be declared, but that this is not always necessary when a Question is asked. I make no complaint of the fact that no interest was declared. I ask for your guidance on whether or not it is an unfortunate practice for hon. Members to ask Questions relating to policy which are also matters acutely touching their own business interests.

Mr. Speaker: One of the duties with which the House does not charge me is that of giving guidance. I will rule on matters when they arise to the best of my ability, because I have to do that in the service of the House.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Further to the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), may I be allowed to put it to the Leader of the House that he should ask the Prime Minister to make a statement about Katanga, in view of Dr. O'Brien's statement, at the earliest possible moment? Is he aware that Dr. O'Brien—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am asking the Leader of the House whether he will ask the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—to make a statement at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have no power to allow him to ask a question after the end of Questions in this way.

CONGO

Mr. Warbey: I desire to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the violation by Her Majesty's Government of Articles 25 and 49 of the United Nations Charter by obstructing the execution of decisions of the Security Council in regard to the Congo, including Katanga Province, and their violation of Article 100 of the Charter in seeking to influence members of the Secretariat in the discharge of their responsibilities.
I should like to make a brief submission in support of my claim that this is within the Standing Order. First, it


may be argued that this is not a definite matter, because there are two matters contained in the Motion. I suggest, however, that the second matter is subordinate to the first, namely, that the charge of seeking to influence members of the United Nation's Secretariat is subordinate to the main question—the main charge—of obstructing the carrying out of the Security Council's decisions.
Secondly, I am not putting this forward on the basis of any statement made by a person for whom Her Majesty's Government are not responsible. It is perfectly true that charges have been made against the Government by Dr. O'Brien, but these charges have also been made in this House. I am repeating them in this Motion, and I take full responsibility before the House for making these charges.
Thirdly, I think that the statement of Dr. O'Brien is relevant, because it has brought the matter to a head, and has made it imperative that the Government, without any delay whatsoever, should make a statement in answer to these charges. I am astonished that the Government should have so low a view of their prestige and honour—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that they have not made a statement.
The Guardian—and I think that this is within the submission—in a leading article today, concludes with the words:
The Government ought to consider this"—
that is, Dr. O'Brien's statement—
as an urgent priority.
Finally, I believe that it has been ruled that the question of public importance is a matter for the House as a whole, but I would add that I cannot think that any matter is of greater public importance than the loyalty of this country to the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks for leave to move the Amendment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,

the violation by Her Majesty's Government of Articles 25 and 49 of the United Nations Charter by obstructing the execution of decisions of the Security Council in regard to the Congo, including Katanga Province, and their violation of Article 100 of the Charter by seeking to influence members of the Secretariat in the discharge of their responsibilities.
I cannot accept the application, for I cannot conceive the Motion to be within the Standing Order.

Mr. Warbey: Will you be kind enough to indicate the position, Mr. Speaker? I accept your Ruling, but it is suggested that this matter may be the subject of a Government statement later this week. In fact, I think that Questions have been tabled for answer on Wednesday. If the matter is further referred to in the House during the course of this week, may I ask for an assurance that the fact that you have not accepted my Motion does not prejudice the possibility of my bringing it forward again later?

Mr. Speaker: All my Ruling relates to is the application at present made by the hon. Member, which I do not conceive to be within the Standing Order.

Mr. H. Wilson: You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I this morning sought to table Private Notice Questions on various aspects of the Katanga situation. Your Ruling, which, naturally, we all accept, was that in one sense they were not in order and that they were also anticipatory.
In view of the general interest in this subject, may we take it that your Ruling on my hon. Friend's attempt to move the Adjournment of the House will not prejudice our coming before you again in an attempt to raise this matter? We hope that that will not be necessary if the Leader of the House listens to the appeal made by my right hon. Friend this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman understands to what my Ruling relates. It does not relate to anything else.

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That. for the purposes of any Act of this Session to make provision until the end of the year nineteen hundred and sixty-two for financing any accumulated revenue deficit of the National Coal Board, it is expedient to authorise such increases in the sums which by or under any enactment are to be or may be charged on or issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing or paid into the Exchequer as may result from extending the power to make advances to the Board under subsection (1) of section twenty-six of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, to include power to advance to the Board sums required before the end of the said year for financing to an amount not exceeding fifty million pounds any accumulated deficit on revenue account.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(FINANCE FOR REVENUE DEFICIT.)

3.44 p.m.

The Chairman: It would be for the convenience of the Committee if the first two Amendments were considered together.

Mr. William Warbey: On a point of order. I could not very well hear, Sir Gordon, whether you indicated which Amendments would be selected, because there was a disturbance in the House.

The Chairman: I suggested that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the first two Amendments were considered together.

Mr. Warbey: Would that not prejudice the question of the selection of my Amendment, at the end to add subsection (3)?—
(3) Notwithstanding any provision in any enactment, the rate of interest charged on any advance made under this section shall not exceed one half of one per cent., and no repayment of any such advance shall be made, except at the option of the Board, before the first day of January, two thousand and two.

The Chairman: The hon. Member's Amendment is not selected.

Mr. Warbey: On a point of order. I find it a little difficult to understand why it has not been selected, because I took some care—

The Chairman: Order. I cannot discuss with the hon. Member the selection of Amendments. If we embarked on such matters our proceedings would be prolonged.

Mr. Warbey: Further to that point of order. There are precedents for submissions being made on the selection of Amendments and for an hon. Member to be given an opportunity to discuss whether Amendments should be selected and whether they are in order. That has been done by Mr. Speaker on other occasions. I ask that you give me the opportunity to explain why I think that this Amendment is in order.

The Chairman: That would not he in accordance with the precedents of the House.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out "fifty" and to insert "twenty-five."
I am grateful to you, Sir Gordon, for saying that this Amendment should be taken with the Amendment in line 12, at the end to insert:
Provided that from any such advances the Minister may recover from the Board any amount of wage or salary increases not directly related to increases in productive efficiency.
These Amendments are in the names of a number of my hon. Friends and myself.
In bringing the Bill forward on Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power said:
This is a short Bill. It is also a temporary Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 449.]
At the beginning of my speech on the same day I said:
I find this an unwelcome and most unsatisfactory Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November 1961; Vol. 650, c. 466.]
That illustrates at once the gulf between my right hon. Friend and myself. These two Amendments, shortly expressed, are, first, to bring the National Coal Board back to the House for a further examination of its deficit financing approximately six months hence instead of approximately twelve months hence. The second Amendment is


directly associated with the pay pause, which is the Government's declared objective and policy.
My right hon. Friend's reference to a temporary Bill recalls to my mind what was said on 20th November in the course of my Questions to my right hon. Friend and his Answers. I said on that occasion:
Is it not a fact that the Coal Industry Bill at present before the House is a further palliative involving merely an extension of the Board's borrowing powers and dealing only with an immediate situation, and cannot my right hon. Friend assure the House that he proposes to proceed in the present Session of Parliament with a major reform of the disastrous consequences of the existing coal industry statutes, and proceed with such reform within twelve months?
My right hon. Friend replied:
My hon. Friend's judgment of the Bill as it stands is perfectly correct.
In other words, that it is a palliative.
It is to deal with an immediate situation. There is, as he knows only too well, a fundamental situation which I am now examining. I cannot promise when proposals will be made to take account of that, but I am very much aware of it and of the urgency to deal with it"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 908–9.]
My claim is that the deficit financing of the Coal Board is now running taxpayers very deeply and heavily into the red. On my right hon. Friend's own confession, the deficit or accumulated loss forward of the Board at 31st December next will be about £90 million. Although I do not see the direct relevance of it, my right hon. Friend continued by saying that the internal funds of the Board will probably be about £60 million. Those figures are given in column 450 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 29th November.
What has aroused my deepest suspicion of my right hon. Friend's financial intentions and motives, honourable though I am sure they are—and I am delighted to have the Patronage Secretary's support on this occasion—are the words which my right hon. Friend has printed in his Financial Memorandum on the front of the Bill;
The possibility that this deficit may increase during 1962 cannot be ruled out.
As far as I am aware, no financial institution in the City of London would underwrite a debenture issue or similar

short-term loan arrangement for a commercial concern which was operating currently at a heavy loss without requiring a detailed statement of the probable outcome of the profit-and-loss account in the ensuing twelve months. That would be inherent in the advancement of money. My right hon. Friends have always said to the House that it is their view that the Coal Board should be run as a commercial enterprise. I therefore say to my right hon. Friend that it is not unreasonable today that I should ask him for further information as to the losses which he expects the Coal Boad to make in the passage of the year 1962.
May I put my first formal question to my right hon. Friend? I want to avoid his having to write down these questions, so perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will pass this information to the Minister on this piece of paper.

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. James Griffiths: On a point of order. I gather that papers are being laid on the Table, Sir Gordon. May I ask whether that is so, and, if it is, whether you will direct that a copy shall be made available to every hon. Member?

The Chairman: I am not quite sure what is being done, but I do not think that papers have been laid on the Table.

Mr. Griffiths: Further to that point of order. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has passed a paper to the Minister. If that paper is in the possession of the Minister, it should be on the Table of the House. That is why I ask that it be circulated.

The Chairman: That is not the case.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order. Since the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has handed the Minister a note of his speech, might not the rest of the Committee be spared the delivery of his speech?

Mr. Nabarro: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) on his intervention. Of course, he is quite wrong. All I wish to do is to prevent my right hon. Friend having to take down verbatim 20 questions which I propose to ask him in connection with the


Bill. Those questions will be taken seriatim. The first of the questions which I put to my right hon. Friend is—

Mr. Warbey: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to read from a prepared speech?

The Chairman: It is in order for an hon. Member to use copious notes.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. I understood the hon. Member to say, Sir Gordon, that he proposed to ask the Minister 20 questions. I do not know whether he got the model from, but did not Question Time conclude 20 minutes ago?

The Chairman: The hon. Member may make a speech in an interrogatory manner.

Mr. Nabarro: My first question to my right hon. Friend is: how long will the £50 million provided in the Bill last the Coal Board before its funds again run out? The second question is a corollary of the first. If the Amendment which I am moving is accepted by my right hon. Friend and the sum in the Bill were reduced from £50 million to £25 million, which, in accord with my general calculation, would bring the Board back to the House of Commons for a renewal of funds in six months' time instead of twelve months' time, how long would the £25 million last the Board, because the anticipated loss on revenue account may not be at an even rate throughout the period forward which we are covering?

Sir James Duncan: Six months would land us into August, when the House would not be sitting.

Mr. Nabarro: If the rate of loss were exactly even over the next twelve months, the Board would come back to the House for replacement of funds in May, 1962. Nobody knows, however, whether the projected rate of loss is even or uneven. That is why I make the point. My right hon. Friend knows, but he has not yet told the House. I hope that today he will be a little more candid in these important matters.
My right hon. Friend said on 20th November that there was a fundamental situation which he was now examining

in the context of the Coal Board. He later admitted
the need to put the finances of the Coal Board on a permanently sound basis".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 451.]
My right hon. Friend will recall that in my Second Reading speech, I said to him that that should surely involve a drastic revision of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, which was framed in the first full flush of enthusiasm for nationalisation and State ownership. Circumstances have changed fundamentally during the last fifteen years. The 1st January next, or less than one month hence, will be the fifteenth anniversary of vesting day—1st January, 1947,—for the Coal Board. In those fifteen years, nationalisation has become an unwholesome and a dirty word.

Mr. David Griffiths: Not half as dirty as the hon. Member.

Mr. Nabarro: There is not much enthusiasm for Clause 4 of the Labour Party's constitution on the other side of the Committee—not by the Leader of the Opposition, at all events.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is going rather further than the Amendment.

Mr. Nabarro: I would not in any way challenge your judgment, Sir Gordon, but it is impossible to deal with the amount of money under the Bill unless we examine the prospects for a fundamental revision of the head Statute, which is the Statute of 1946.
That brings me to the important question to my right hon. Friend, the third in this series of questions: when will the measure to reform the Act of 1946 be laid before us for drastic reconstruction of the Coal Board? My right hon. Friend has admitted the need for it. Until we know when that is forthcoming—

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. While fully appreciating, Sir Gordon, that Members who make speeches in Committee stages of this kind and on other occasions may legitimately ask Ministers questions relating to the matter under discussion, is it not clear that a great many of these


questions have nothing to do with the Bill and, certainly, nothing to do with the Amendment?

The Chairman: It is sometimes difficult to know exactly where to draw the line.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Further to that point of order. Do I understand, Sir Gordon, that if some of us wish to follow the hon. Member, provided we catch your eye, and to indulge in what might be regarded as a Second Reading debate, no objection will be taken?

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait until that situation arises.

Mr. Nabarro: I will pass from the point if it is embarrassing to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who is the culprit of the 1946 Act, and who knows very well that this is effectively a one-Clause Bill and, therefore, the speeches now being made to reduce the amount provided in the single Clause must dwell only on the single consideration in the Bill, which is to increase the Board's borrowing powers.
In his winding-up speech on Second Reading, the Parliamentary Secretary had a good deal to say about the use of the price mechanism by his right hon. Friend in increasing substantially the prices for coal throughout the country. I had asked questions about the revenue expected from that increase in price and I had not received any satisfactory answers. Of course, this has a direct bearing on whether the £50 million called for under the Bill is an excessive sum for additional borrowing powers or is an inadequate sum, because, according to my right hon. Friend, the Board will derive additional revenue in the course of the coming year by putting up the price of coal.
It has been represented that the price of coal will be put up only in Scotland and in Lancashire. That is not so. The price of all coal other than domestic coal is substantially being increased in Scotland. It is substantially being increased in the North-Western Division—Lancashire and North Wales—on the premise that it will do something to diminish the losses of the Board. But prices of coal, notably large coal,

throughout the country are also being raised throughout England and Wales, which is a notorious omission from Ministerial speeches on the occasion of Second Reading. In every instance, domestic coal is excluded.
My case this afternoon is that no more coal will be sold by putting up the price. In my judgment, less coal will be sold by putting up the price. The deficit of the Coal Board will be increased, not decreased, by putting up the price. The Minister has postulated that the total yield to the Board from these increased coal prices will be £14 million in a full year, of which £7 million will result from the increases in Scotland, £3 million from those in the North-West and £4 million from those in the rest of England and Wales.
My view—and I am strongly supported by what has occurred in the last two or three years—is that increasing the price of coal will simply lead to a hastening switch to fuel oil. It will sell less coal and it will yield less revenue to the Board. Instead of the £14 million additional revenue which my right hon. Friend says he hopes to obtain by the added coal prices, I believe that his revenue will be substantially diminished.
4.0 p.m.
There are thousands of people today who have been driven, sadly, to the same conclusion and course of action to which I have been driven in the last few weeks. I always used solid fuel in my home—always—as the strongest possible supporter of the Coal Board and through an instinctive love of British solid fuel. I have now switched to fuel oil. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I am not ashamed, because I cannot afford any longer—

Mr. M. Foot: To pay Surtax?

Mr. Nabarro: —to pay the exorbitant prices being asked for coal and coke as an ordinary domestic consumer. I have gone over to fuel oil because I consider that it will be cheaper.
My case to my right hon. Friend is simply this, that his postulated increase of revenue of £14 million from higher coal prices is a totally false premise, notably in Scotland, where he is doing grave injury to Scottish industry by these increased coal prices. The Parliamentary Secretary said in his speech last


Wednesday, replying to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), that the increased coal prices represented only one-half of 1 per cent. increase in cost. The Parliamentary Secretary used to be an employee of the Coal Board.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: No, he did not.

Mr. Nabarro: Latterly, he has been a private enterprise manufacturer.

Mr. Walter Monslow: That was a wrong postulation.

Mr. Nabarro: He seems to have for gotten that if we put up the price of coal then, inevitably, the price of gas, the price of electricity, the price of coke, the price of steel, the prices of all manufactures, increase, and that—

Mr. D. Griffiths: Same speech over again.

Mr. Nabarro: —will aggravate much more than help the situation. It is disastrous to put up the price of coal.
My fifth question is: how much extra revenue in 1962 does my right hon. Friend expect from increased coal prices? Is the figure of £14 million attributed to him indeed the correct figure?
My sixth question: does he really think that the Coal Board will sell more coal in 1962 at higher prices, and, if so, how much more coal? Certainly, that is very important in the context of the £50 million asked for in this Bill.
Is it not now clear that the Chancellor's fuel oil duty in his Budget for 1961 was inspired by the Minister of Power as a measure or protection for coal and was the precursor to the increased coal prices which form part of the anticipated revenue on which this £50 million is based?
The second Amendment, which, Sir Gordon, you have now said may be taken with this Amendment, deals, as I said earlier, with the pay pause. This, of course, appears to me to be exactly in consonance with the declared policy of the Government and of the Tory Central Office. The Tory Central Office sends me every week a magnificent document which helps me to make my weekend speeches in the country. It is called

"Weekend Talking Point." It is a very good document and I commend it to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
This weekend's document is called, "Why the pay pause is vital." It starts off, in its first paragraph, "Why the pause?" I used this in my speech in Birmingham last Friday evening which, Sir Gordon, you no doubt saw amply reported in the provincial Press. It started off with these words:
If pay rises more than productivity then costs and prices must rise.
Examine the terms of the second Amendment:
Provided that from any such advances the Minister may recover from the Board any amount of wage or salary increases not directly related to increases in productive efficiency.

Mr. Ray Gunter: On a point of order. In view of the fact that the bon. Member is talking on the general lines of the pay pause shall we, Sir Gordon, be allowed to discuss in full the general principles which lie behind it?

The Chairman: It may be discussed—not at length, I hope—as it applies to the Coal Board, but must be confined to that.

Mr. Nabarro: I did not hear, Sir Gordon.

Mr. Gunter: The hon. Gentleman did not confine himself to the Coal Board in his opening remarks. What I want to know is whether we shall be allowed to reply.

The Chairman: The Amendment applies to the Coal Board and the discussion must as far as possible be related to that.

Mr. Nabarro: When I was interrupted by the point of order I was, of course, coming straight to the Coal Board.
The two quotations I made were linked. My next quotation is from the front page of the Sunday Times. Does the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) wish to interrupt me?

Mr. Roy Mason: Only to remind the hon. Member that he said he would inform the Committee of the contents of the Tory Central Office weekend pamphlet. We were waiting to hear those words.

Mr. Nabarro: I quoted from it. The hon. Member could not have been listening to me. I have already quoted from it.

Mr. S. Silverman: Quoted from it?

Mr. Nabarro: Yes, I quoted the first sentence. I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy for his own education and guidance.
The front page of the Sunday Times, in the context of the Coal Board and the pay pause, printed under the headings:
Miners hit by pay pause. Robens delays talks.
these words:
Lord Robens, Chairman of the National Coal Board, will tell the National Union of Mineworkers this week that he cannot meet them till next year to discuss their claim for higher wages and shorter hours. By doing so he will give an enormous if unwitting boost to the Government's pay pause policy. His decision, the most important over pay since the Electricity industry capitulation. shocked miners' leaders when I told them.
That seems to me to be very much in connection with this Amendment, and it leads me to put my eighth question to my right hon. Friend, and it is this. In view of the statement made by Lord Robens to the Sunday Times, what further clarification of the pay pause has my right hon. Friend now given to Lord Robens? I hope that he will inform the Committee closely today, because I, for one, am in a muddle about the pay pause. I believe in a real pay pause, as I demonstrated in my Second Reading speech when I pointed to the Motion on the Notice Paper of the House signed by more than thirty hon. Friends of mine and myself.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend, therefore, the ninth question: did he support Lord Robens in saying that he cannot meet the miners till next year to discuss higher wages and shorter hours? That has a direct bearing on the amount of money which the Board will want from my right hon. Friend to conduct its affairs.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Would you be good enough, Sir Gordon, to elucidate this point for me and, no doubt, other hon. Members who are concerned? What exactly in the Amendment is related to the pay pause?

The Chairman: The Amendment refers to
any amount of wage or salary increases".

Mr. Shinwell: But does the Amendment relate to the pay pause?

The Chairman: It is up to the hon. Member to show whether it does or not.

Mr. Nabarro: I should have thought it axiomatic, if English words have any meaning at all, that this Amendment is related to the pay pause. That is certainly my intention. I did not think that "pay pause", as a term, would be correct to put on the Notice Paper. Therefore, I framed my Amendment in slightly different if more copious terms.

Mr. Warbey: On a point of order. The Amendment does not seem to be related to the pay pause, because it talks about wage or salary increases as related to increased productivity.

The Chairman: That is a matter of opinion rather than a point of order.

Mr. Warbey: I submit, Sir Gordon, that it does not relate to the pay pause, that is to say, to a complete stop of wages increases, which has nothing to do with the question of wage increases relating to increases in productivity.

The Chairman: That is a matter of debate and opinion.

Mr. Nabarro: I endeavoured to demonstrate to the hon. Member exactly what is the Government's interpretation of the pay pause in the quotation which I read shortly before I alluded for the first time to this Amendment.

Mr. S. Silverman: But that was the Conservative Central Office.

Mr. Nabarro: The Conservative Central Office is subject to the whim and dictate of Her Majesty's Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is also chairman of the party. He is listening to me, grinning broadly. Of course he knows that the Conservative Office policy is closely in consonance with that of Her Majesty's Government. The definition given this weekend by the Conservative Central Office to the pay pause was in the words which I have


related, and they are so directly concerned with the Amendment that I hope that I shall be allowed to repeat them:
If pay rises more than productivity then costs and prices must rise.
That is exactly what the Amendment says.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Sir Gordon, to the terms of the Amendment, which reads:
Provided that from any such advances "—
that is, from the £50 million or £25 million as the case may be—
the Minister may recover from the Board any amount of wage or salary increases not directly related to increases in productive efficiency.
It is related to the question of productive efficiency and has nothing to do with the pay pause.

The Chairman: That is the point that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is on.

Mr. Nabarro: I now put my eleventh question to my right hon. Friend. Does the Minister accept the principle of increased pay for increased productivity, and, if so, on an individual basis, or on a collective basis for the whole industry? This is associated directly with my twelfth question, which is inspired by an intervention by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) on Second Reading, concerning miners' arbitration. It is very apposite to the matter of the sums advanced to the Board under the Bill. Does my right hon. Friend accept the sanctity of an arbitration award and, if granted, does he intend that moneys under the Bill shall be used for the extra pay?
I believe that the pay pause means that if productivity goes up then pay may go up, but if productivity does not go up pay must not go up. It is as simple as that, but I am not sure that this is the interpretation placed upon it by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power. As in the mining industry arbitration on wages is compulsory arbitration and an award has always been binding, and if an award were made the moneys would have to be found from within the moneys voted under the Bill, it is not illogical that I should ask my right hon. Friend to give very careful

attention to the twelfth question when he replies to me.
On Second Reading, there was a good deal of talk about coal stocks. Those who have studied the recent Statistical Digest of the Minister of Power will have seen that there were 22 million tons of undistributed coal in the hands of the Coal Board worth an indeterminate sum. No one has any idea what the inventory value of the stocks is supposed to be, what has been the degradation in the last three years since they were put down—and many of them have not been turned over in that time—or what they could be sold for today, if they could be sold at all. This leads to my thirteenth question. What is the planned reduction of coal stocks in 1962 and what cash will result from such sales to swell the Board's finances?
The fourteenth question, linked to it, is: what is the inventory value of these 22 million tons of coal and how much loss or otherwise will be made on coal stocking during 1962? I apologise to my right hon. Friend for the fact that there is a typographical error in his copy of this question. The date should be 1962, not 1961. I hope that he is now marking the right question. The fifteenth question is this: does any part of the additional borrowing of £50 million relate to the costs of stocking coal, or losses on sales of stocks of coal, and if so, how much?
4.15 p.m.
There is a good deal of uncertainty in considering the Bill and the £50 million in Clause 1—which I seek to reduce to £25 million in order to charge the Board with more frequent accountability to Parliament—in connection with the sums of capital investment by the Board. It has been announced that the capital investment programme of the Board for 1960–61 will be £94 million. In 1961–62, it will be £97 million and in 1962–63 it is said that it will be £95 million. The grave allegation is made by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Timmons) that there are heavy wastages associated with capital investment in Scotland, which have so aggravated the Scottish branches of the National Union of Mineworkers that they are today demanding a public inquiry into these losses before further pits are shut.
In view of the massive character of the capital investment sums, I want to ask question sixteen, which is: how much of the extra £50 million under the Bill is for capital development account, and what will be the rate of interest charged in relation to the Bank Rate? This is particularly important in view of the sad misfortune of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey), who cannot get his Amendment called, because the interest rate of financing to the Board and its relation to the Bank Rate is of as much interest to him as it is to me, although I do not necessarily share his financial philosophy in this respect.
My seventeeth question also deals with capital account and asks what sums on capital account is the Coal Board finding out of its own resources in 1962, and how much is to be borrowed? The eighteenth question arises from allegations made by the hon. Member for Bothwell. He is a Socialist Member, but he could not have been more derogatory about the conduct of affairs by the Coal Board in Scotland, than he was on Second Reading.
The eighteenth question asks my right hon. Friend: does the Minister propose to yield to the very justifiable demand of Scottish mineworkers and Socialist Members in Scottish seats for an inquiry into the failures of the Coal Board in Scotland and if not, why not? I am not a Scottish Member—

Mr. Shinwell: Scotland would not have the hon. Member.

Mr. Nabarro: Judging by the number of requests from north of the Border to address weekend meetings, I should think that I have as much right to go to Scotland as the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. M. Foot: Now that they know that the hon. Member has a brief from the Conservative Central Office they will not want him.

Mr. Nabarro: But it is not a brief.

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Nabarro: I will deal with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) elsewhere.
I say, in conclusion, to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power that the

nineteenth and twentieth questions are the most important of all. The nineteenth is a reiteration of a question which I put to him on Second Reading and to which the Parliamentary Secretary artfully dodged the reply. Is the nationalised coal industry to be run as a social welfare service or as a commercial concern? This question is fundamentally associated with these two Amendments. The twentieth and last question I put to my right hon. Friend—and I ask him to give me a convincing and conclusive reply—is this: when will the Coal Board begin to earn a profit?

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): Before the 20 questions fade from my memory, I would like to give an opinion on them. I will be only too delighted to answer them seriatim, but not on this occasion.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) will know, I was first for Oral Questions last week, and I would have been delighted to answer all his questions if he could have persuaded nine other hon. Gentlemen to join him in putting them down. I will certainly give him answers, but I would not like to prolong the debate, in which other hon. Gentlemen want to take part, by answering seriatim at the present time.
The debate has been introduced in what I believe we all thought was a wide-ranging speech. You, Sir Gordon, have said that it was all in order. It is my defence for ranging rather less widely that I hope I can answer my hon. Friend's points by confining myself rather more narrowly than he did.
During the Second Reading debate, I did my best to explain the purpose and the justification of the figure of £50 million which occurs in the Bill. I explained that its purpose was to bridge the gap between the total accumulated deficit and the Board's internal funds available to cover it. I also explained that this gap could vary according to movements either in the internal fund or in the deficit. I then went on to try to justify the figure of £50 million by estimating the likely size of the gap at the end of this year and by foreshadowing the probability of its continuance into 1962.
I used the words to which my hon. Friend has already referred. I said:
At the end of this year, the Board's internal funds will probably be about £60 million, and the accumulated deficit is likely to be rather over £90 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 29th November, 1960; Vol. 650, c. 450.]
My hon. Friend will appreciate that there is very little time left in this year for these prospects to change. I think that from today we have only 27 days, including Sundays, left in 1961. Therefore, the possibility that it is £25 million and not rather more than £30 million which is to be needed is, to put it mildly, exceedingly remote.
It may be suggested that the Board could borrow from the banks under the temporary borrowing powers of £20 million provided by Section 27 of the 1946 Act, but I have already explained that the Board is not a regular customer of the banks because it happens to borrow from me to meet day to day needs under Section 26. For these reasons, it was unable to borrow from the banks at the end of last year, and in the present conditions of increased credit stringency it is clear that the Board would not be able to do so this year.
I conclude this part of the argument against the suggestion that the figure should be £25 million instead of £50 million by saying that there is no way in which the Board could finance its likely gap in 27 days' time of rather more than £30 million other than by the provisions of this Bill. If £25 million were substituted for £50 million, I would not be able to continue to meet the day to day needs which are going to be evident in 1962, and it is an essential part of the Bill that it contains a provision for next year.
Therefore, the first Amendment would not only remove the marginal provision for 1962 but would also, for reasons which I have given, make the provision inadequate for the needs of 1961 as well. In this way, as I hope my hon. Friend will agree, the Amendment would frustrate the whole purpose of the Bill, which he himself supported on Second Reading. Therefore, I would like to ask him, in due time, whether he would be willing to withdraw the Amendment.
I now turn to the second Amendment which my hon. Friend embraced. I

have already said that the Government seem likely, under the Bill, to advance something over £30 million to the Board at the end of this year. If the Board, sometime between now and the end of next year, granted a wage or salary increase, in the words of the Amendment,
 . not directly related to increases in productive efficiency
the effect of this Amendment would compel me or my successor to recover from the Board the sum by which the increase was supposed to exceed the increase in productivity.
My hon. Friend specifically said that his second Amendment was aimed at the maintenance of the pay pause. I want to point out that, although I am sure the Amendment has that intention, I am bound to take the view that the Amendment as on the Notice Paper would, in itself, do nothing to preserve the pay pause.
I have already said before how important I regard the maintenance of the pay pause, and certainly, whatever follows the period of the pay pause, conformity of wages and salaries, on the one hand, with increases of productivity, on the other, will be an essential tenet and objective of British economic policy. Therefore, I can willingly give assent to the idea expressed by my hon. Friend in the Amendment—that wages and salaries should not rise out of proportion with the increase in productivity.
The Amendment, however, would not achieve this object. It would not preserve the pay pause, because it clearly carries the implication that the Board could grant increases at any time if based on improved productivity. If the Government accepted the Amendment it would not, I think, be unnatural to draw the inference that the Government would have no objection to increases in wages being granted at once if the necessary conditions of increased productivity were fulfilled.
That, of course, is not the Government's position. The Government attach the greatest importance to the maintenance of the pay pause, and they believe that there should, for the time being, be no increases at all. I would also emphasise the difficulties that would arise from an attempt to write a formula of this


kind into the wage negotiations between the Board and the unions. The essential yardstick against which my hon. Friend suggests that wage claims should be judged is itself rather uncertain, because it is very difficult to be quite certain of what exactly is meant by increases in productive efficiency. For instance, if output per man shift went up from 30 to 32 cwt., would that be an increase in productive efficiency of one-fifteenth or 6·7 per cent., or are there other factors which should be considered?
During the Second Reading debate, I pointed out that output per man shift in the first three-quarters of 1961 had increased by 2½ per cent. That was before the larger increase I mentioned later. I pointed out that this was insufficient to offset increased costs, and, therefore, if increases in productive efficiency are equated with improvements in output per man shift, an Amendment like this one might do nothing to prevent the Board from offering increased rewards even out of declining revenue. This is an argument against the inclusion of this particular formula in wage negotiations.

Mr. Nabarro: My right hon. Friend has made a very important statement. He has given me exactly the form of clarification which I have been trying to obtain for a long time. What he is now saying is that in the context of the Coal Board it is not a pay pause, but a pay freeze; it is the Arctic: there must not be any increases in wages or salaries in any circumstances.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Wood: I may be able to remove any doubts which linger in my hon. Friend's mind before the end of my speech, because I have argued so far against the inclusion of any particular formula of this kind in the wage negotiations, but I will try to explain—adding to my explanation of last week—the more general reasons why the inclusion of any formula would be undesirable.
In the debate last week, I told the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster included, that I had taken steps to make the Government's present view perfectly clear to the Chairman of the National Coal Board. On that occasion, I took particular care to avoid

confusing the responsibilities of the Government, on the one hand, with those of the Coal Board, on the other. From what he said in the debate last week, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster takes the view that it would be legal for me to issue directions to the nationalised fuel and power industries which would be general in form even though they would be clearly aimed, in the circumstances of today, at wage claims which have already been presented.
I will not argue this rather delicate legal question with him. My grounding in the law is rather less thorough than his seems to be, but my information is that the legality of any such direction would be very, very dubious, indeed. Perhaps that is not the main point because, whether or not I now have power to issue general directions of this kind, it would certainly be possible for me, in theory, to ask Parliament to give me those powers. But the essential point seems to be that whichever alternative I adopt—finding that I already possess the power and deciding to make a general direction, or asking for new powers and then doing so, or—and this is the point particularly related to this Amendment—by means of an Amendment such as this, attempting to place statutory restrictions on the amount of any wage increase which the Board could concede, I am convinced that the result in all three cases would be the same and that the ultimate responsibility for wage negotiation would then be transferred from the Board to the Minister.
In a statement which he made last week, Lord Robens used these words:
If, in fact, I had been instructed as to my course of action, then I would have had to inform the Union accordingly and I have no doubt that they would then want to transfer their negotiations to the Government.
I understand and wholly share my hon. Friend's anxiety that the pay pause should be maintained. I spoke to hon. Members frankly last week about the advice which I had already offered to Lord Robens, and I added that I was perfectly sure that he understands the Government's point of view.

Mr. J. Griffiths: This is vitally important. We must get it absolutely clear. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in the coal mining industry there is an


agreement governing negotiations and the settlement of wage claims. The National Union of Mineworkers is entitled to put forward claims for increases in wages. Those claims may be rejected by the Board for all kinds of reasons, and not just because of a pay pause. In that case, however, the men are not only able, but are obliged by their agreement, to submit their case to arbitration and to accept the arbitration. In giving directions to the Chairman of the Board, has the Minister said that applications for wage increases must be refused and that the Board must also refuse to have claims submitted to arbitration?

Mr. Wood: No, I am not saying that. The whole burden of what I have been trying to say is that negotiations must take place between the Board and the unions. I conceive it to be the Government's responsibility and my responsibility to make clear to Lord Robens and the Board exactly what the Government's views are and then, as I have been trying to make clear, it is up to them, not the Minister, to undertake negotiations in the light of the Government's advice.

Mr. Gunter: We ought to get this very clear. If the National Union of Mineworkers gets a "No" from the Coal Board and then voluntarily proceeds to arbitration—it is not bound to do so—and the arbitration court awards the union something, what will the Minister do?

Mr. Wood: The position is that the normal procedure for negotiation will take place. All I will continue to do is to make perfectly clear to Lord Robens exactly where the Government stand. If it should come—and that is a very long way in the future—to a question of arbitration, that is certainly hypothetical and it is a question which it is impossible for me to answer now.
Last week, I referred to the special circumstances of this industry, which is dependent on Exchequer support to meet current losses. I concluded, as I have tried to point out again today, that it would be wrong to attempt to transfer from the Board to the Government responsibility for wages and conditions in the coal industry. Just because an Amendment of this kind would have that effect, and because the transfer of re-

sponsibility in this case would have far-reaching and undesirable consequences, both for the nationalised industries and probably over a wider range, I hope that in due course my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster will be willing to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Nabarro: This is the first time that we have had to discuss deficit financing of a State board. When a State board is heavily "in the red", as the Coal Board is, if there is an increase in wages it can be paid only out of moneys voted by Parliament. Therefore, how can my right hon. Friend piously say that it is wrong for Parliament to be involved in wage negotiation matters when it is the taxpayers—not the Coal Board—who are being expected to underwrite these losses and to provide additional moneys for any wage increases in the industry? It is that which my right hon. Friend has completely failed to answer.

Mr. Wood: I think that I have already made the position perfectly clear. The Amendment would place restrictions on the negotiations between the Board and the unions and would have the effect of transferring responsibility for negotiations from the Board to the Government. That is a situation in which we do not want to find ourselves.

Mr. Nabarro: I do not agree.

Mr. Shinwell: In his reply, the Minister has elevated this debate into one of considerable importance, which transcends the irresponsible ravings of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). Since the hon. Member came to the House, he has engaged in a malicious vendetta against the National Coal Board.
This is a democratic assembly and and every hon. Member, even a right hon. Member, has a right to express himself, but a vendetta is quite a different story. After listening to the hon. Member's speech in the Second Reading debate the other day, and again today, it seems to me that if that is how he feels about the Coal Board—and, of course, we know how he feels about nationalisation in general and the nationalisation of the coal industry in particular—why does he content himself with frivolous Amendments of this kind? Why does


not he, with his hon. Friends who support him—there are not many of them, but there are some—

Mr. Nabarro: There are quite a lot.

Mr. Shinwell: —put a Motion on the Order Paper calling upon the Government to depart entirely from the nationalisation of the coal industry, to abandon the scheme altogether, and revert to private ownership? If he did that—

Mr. Nabarro: Does the right hon. Gentleman want an answer? I am privileged to be allowed to answer the architect of the Coal Board in the matter of coal nationalisation. The answer is very simple—because nobody would buy a coal mine after it had been through the right hon. Gentleman's nationalising hands.

Mr. Shinwell: I leave it to hon. Members to form their own view about the refinement of that intervention.

Mr. Nabarro: It was a very good one.

Mr. Shinwell: I would tell the Committee—I hope that this will not be regarded as a mere digression—that if the hon. Member wants to indulge in abuse, let him be assured that there are words in my vocabulary which I have never used yet; I am accustomed to dealing with merchants of his character. But that is not the purpose of this debate, and I will not allow myself to yield to temptation.
What we are concerned with at the moment, at any rate, apart from what the hon. Member for Kidderminster said in the course of his presentation of "Twenty Questions", is the very important declaration made by the Minister in relation to the wage issue which confronts the coal industry.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of two factors in this situation. One is—and I was responsible for it when preparing the legislation for the nationalisation of the coal industry—that the whole purpose of appointing a corporate body, the Coal Board, instead of investing the Government with responsibility for administration, was to allow the Board, in conjunction with the representatives of the workers of the industry, through

negotiation, through consultation and through arbitration, to decide the rate of pay for the men, and to ensure that there should be no Government interference whatever.
I admit that there was a time in the history of the industry when Ministers interfered; for example, when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Mines, away back in 1924, it was myself, and not the then Minister of Labour, who was responsible for conducting the negotiations with the coal owners, and a decision was reached for which the coal owners and I bore the responsibility. But we departed from that system entirely when we prepared the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act.
I want to tell the Minister this: he has no power of direction in respect of wages—none whatever. The legalistic experts, with all their forensic knowledge, may come along and argue the matter, but the prime factor of the situation is that a Minister associated with a nationalised industry has no right to interfere in wage matters.
The right hon. Gentleman seems to have departed from that principle. He dissents, but I must direct his attention to his declaration. What he has said in effect is this—I am speaking on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman, "I saw Lord Robens, the Chairman of the National Coal Board, and I told him what the Government's policy is. I directed his attention to the wage pause and the economic situation in the country, and I indicated that it would be unwise if there were a general increase in the rates of pay of the men in the industry." I do not think the Minister had any right to do anything of the sort. It is a matter for the Coal Board and those engaged in the industry through the ordinary process of arbitration.

Mr. Wood: On the last occasion on which we debated this subject, I used words very similar to the ones I have used today, that I had made Lord Robens perfectly clear about where the Government's wishes lay in this matter. In winding up the debate the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said that he felt that there was nothing exceptionable in anything that I had said.

Mr. Shinwell: I am not responsible for what my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said. I understand the Act of Parliament, and I place my own interpretation upon it, and I deny—I say this with very great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have very much regard—the right hon. Gentleman's right to interfere in any matter pertaining to wages. It is no use denying the fact that if the right hon. Gentleman says to the Chairman of the National Coal Board, "You have got to be exceedingly careful. You must not do this, and you must not do that, or else something will happen", clearly he is intervening in a matter which is not his prerogative. In addition, it embarrasses the Chairman of the Coal Board and the unions concerned.
But what is likely to happen? Lord Robens has said—I read what he said as reported in the Press—that he is not taking his instructions from the Minister. That is what he has said, and we may believe it, but he will have to concern himself very shortly with a demand—indeed, I believe that it has already been presented—for an increase in the rates of pay for a very large number of men in the industry.
What is Lord Robens to do? He will have discussions, there will be consultations, there will be negotiations, and the matter will go to arbitration, and an award will be issued. Presumably, some increase will be suggested. What is Lord Robens to do—go back to the Minister and say, "Shall I pay this increase?"? Consider the dilemma which confronts the Minister. He is likely to be impaled on both horns. First, he has to consider the delicate position of the industry. Secondly, he has to consider the Government's declaration about the wage pause. It is a very embarrassing position all round. It would be far better to leave the Coal Board to mind its own business.
I want to depart from that, although I think it is very—

4.45 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Herbert Butcher): This may be a point where, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman will approach more closely to the Amendment.

Mr. Shinwell: With great respect, Sir Herbert, this matter arose before you undertook your present responsibility in the Chair.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We have been allowed to go very wide.

Mr. Shinwell: Sir Gordon, who preceded you in the Chair, Sir Herbert, was questioned precisely on this point, because the hon. Member for Kidderminster raised the question of the wage pause, and the Minister has replied to that question. At any rate, I do not intend to proceed any further along those lines. I believe that it is a matter which has to be very carefully considered, particularly by hon. Members on this side of the Committee who represent the mineworkers of the country. I have not the least doubt that this will be taken note of by the National Union of Mineworkers.
I merely want to add this. Let it not be forgotten that there are a vast number of mine workers whose wages are at a very low level indeed. I represent on of the largest mining constituencies in the country, and there we have piece workers who earn reasonably good wages when they get good places in the pit. They have to ballot for them: sometimes they are good and sometimes they are bad. That is the custom in Durham—

The Temporary Chairman: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not widen the discussion.

Mr. Shinwell: I just want to add a point which bears on the matter under discussion and relates to the second Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kidderminster. There are at least 200,000 men in the industry whose wages are about £10 a week, and who, after the statutory deductions, and so on, have been made, are left with about £9 a week. It is not enough. We must not complain if these men make demands.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster said coal mining should be a commercial venture. I agree. That was the original purpose of setting up the Board. It was expected that the Board would pay its way, taking one year with another. However, no one was in a position to anticipate the difficulties


which would be encountered by the Board, and nobody ought to impute any blame to any of its chairmen over the years—Lord Hyndley, Sir Hubert Houldsworth, Sir James Bowman and Lord Robens. They are all capable men, and they have been supported by the best mining engineers and experts in the industry.
Let us consider the difficulties the Board has been up against. It has had to import coal from other countries and pay for it, thus increasing its deficit. In addition—and this has a bearing on what the hon. Member for Kidderminster said—it has never been able to charge economic prices for coal. If it had, the industry would have paid its way. What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "economic" prices?

Mr. Nabarro: Exorbitant prices.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) will kindly either rise in his place if he wishes to speak, or keep quiet.

Mr. Nabarro: I rise at once, Sir Herbert. What I was saying was meant to be sotto voce. I was saying that the price of coal today is exorbitant, and that putting it up further will not sell any more. It will sell less.

Mr. Shinwell: Coal prices in this country are as low as those in any other part of Europe. Does any hon. Member wish to challenge that statement?

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: That is not the case as regards coking coal. Since 1953, there has been a 59 per cent. increase in the United Kingdom compared with an increase of about 16 per cent. in the Saar and the Ruhr.

Mr. Shinwell: Everyone knows that the price of coking coal is high because it is scarce. If there is a scarcity, naturally the price goes up, or am I to teach the hon. Gentleman capitalist economics?
If the Coal Board decided that from the beginning of next year it would charge an economic price for coal, the price would not be very much in excess of the prices ruling in the coal producing countries in Europe, apart from the price of German, and perhaps some

Belgian brown coal. That is because brown coal is easily got, to use a mining expression. The Coal Board does not raise its prices, partly for the reason stated by the hon. Member for Kidderminster—the fear of competition from other forms of fuel.
What is the Board to do? Let us by all means have a commercial venture, but one cannot run the industry on a commercial basis unless one raises the price of coal, or reduces the wages of the men working in the industry, or closes a number of pits and reorganise at great expense. But the last named is just what the Board has done over the years, and by means of loans—not gifts—from the Government which it has had to refund at high rates of interest.

Sir William Robson Brown: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the only thing to do was to raise the price of coal. Will he be specific and say which grades of coal he has in mind, and what effect this would have on the industry?

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. I said that we could raise the price of coal, or reduce the wages of the men, or continue closing pits which the Board regarded as uneconomic, thus throwing out of employment large numbers of men and creating a social problem.

Sir W. Robson Brown: Answer the question.

Mr. Shinwell: It does not become anybody associated with private enterprise to boast about these matters. Almost every day one reads about the financial deficiencies in privately-owned industries. If the price of coal were raised, it would have an effect on the steel industry. I believe that the hon. Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown) is associated with this industry. He recently wrote a book about it. I did not think that it was a good book, but, fortunately, I did not buy it. I read it only because it was sent to me. If the steel industry had been compelled to pay an economic price for its coal, the Coal Board would not now be faced with this large deficit.
If we talk about an industry being a commercial venture, we must consider the consequences of what that means.


The hon. Member for Kidderminster said that the industry was not a commercial venture; that it was not paying its way; that it came to the Government time and again for financial assistance; and that it could not get the money it required in the City of London. We all know the reason for that. The hon. Member also asked whether it was a social institution, based on the principle of social welfare.
There is not an industry in the country which does not cater for the social well-being of the people. To take one example, consider transport in the London area. Millions of people could not travel to London and carry on their vocations if it were not for the railway system which is not paying its way, and there are examples of social welfare all round us—family allowances, and so on. This is necessary because wages are not good enough.
I ask the Minister to disregard what was said by the hon. Member for Kidderminster. During the Second Reading debate the other day, at the end of his speech, in a peremptory fashion which is; characteristic of him, the hon. Member called on the Minister to resign. The Minister seems to have taken no notice of that, although I noticed that in his speech this afternoon he made some reference to his successor. I do not know whether that means that he is going to another place, but, at any rate, he paid no attention to the hon. Member for Kidderminster, and I ask him to pay no attention to him in the future. The hon. Member is just having fun and games. He is indulging in his customary mischief.

Mr. Nabarro: Order.

Mr. Shinwell: Some time ago I said that in private life the hon. Member is not a bad fellow, but in public he is a blatherskite. In private he is affable, genial, and, I believe, quite a generous person—although I have not had to avail myself of his generosity—but in public it is otherwise. I ask my hon. Friends, the mineworkers and the Board not to pay any attention to the hon. Member. But this is a free and democratic assembly. Let the hon. Gentleman talk. Let him rave. It does not matter in the least.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I am satisfied with, and accept, my right hon. Friend's explanation on the first Amendment. However, there is doubt about the meaning of the words in the second Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), my right hon. Friend, and I, have all put different interpretations on them. I felt that it was entirely to do with the pay pause but, as the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has said, the field has been widened to cover the whole machinery of wage increases in the nationalised industries.
There is a very real problem here. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Minister has absolutely no power in this matter. I am willing to accept his advice that it would have been illogical for him to have issued a general directive in the matter. The right hon. Member for Easington pointed to many of the flaws in his own nationalisation Statute, which started this all off. He has previously publicly stated his views in connection with the wage claim submitted by the National Union of Mine-workers. He has stated them again today, and I am grateful to him for going as far as possible to meet the purpose of the Amendment, which is to try to give this complicated issue a little public discussion. I am not against an increase for mineworkers, based on productivity or upon the needs of the commercial activities of the Coal Board, at any time as soon as the pay pause is finished, but in the meantime we must stick to it.
We cannot blame the Minister. He has no need to resign. The responsibility in this matter rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Chairman of the Coal Board. That is where it has been placed by Statute. The Chairman's position is becoming extremely unenviable. He is between an immoveable object and an irresistible force. On the one hand, he is faced with my right hon. Friend's declared intention and with the Government's statement of policy, in the national interest. He must face a shortage of cash—a deficit approaching £90 million—and also the whole weight of public opinion in support of the pay pause. On the other hand, he is probably short of some classes of labour in


some districts, he must keep his organisation going, and he is under very heavy pressure from the National Union of Mineworkers.
If my right hon. Friend gives in he will give a twist to the inflationary spiral, against the national interest and against Government policy. But it is very much in his interests to give in. The forces acting upon him to give in are very much stronger than those acting on him to resist. He can ask the House for more money, as the Minister is asking for more money in the Bill. He has no shareholders or bankers to prevent his paying out extra money and incurring a bigger deficit.
In fact, the Government are asking Lord Robens to become excessively mixed up in politics by placing him in this position. They arc asking him to stand firm and are putting every possible moral pressure on him to do so, but they are giving him absolutely no economic motive to do so. There is no reason why he should resist demands, in a business sense. It is economic pressure that makes the pay pause work.
I want to compare the Coal Board with various other sectors of the economy. The Government have complete and direct control over the public employees in their service. They can literally fix their wages at whatever level they like. They have the situation entirely under their control. In the private industry sector, by using economic regulators—increasing the credit squeeze or altering the Bank Rate—they can disastrously affect the future of private companies, lower the level of business activity and create a climate in which people cannot afford—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member must not engage in an economic survey on this Amendment.

Mr. Ridley: I return to the Coal Board. There is no economic motive to make the Chairman resist this wage demand. The Board has no shareholders or bankers, with the possible exception of the House. That is why it is right that we should debate the matter and discuss whether we are prepared to go on financing the Board and persuading our constituents that the

taxes levied on them are fair for this purpose.
This built-in interest towards inflation makes the position of the chairman of a nationalised industry such as this an extremely difficult one. At some stage the Government must try to solve this problem. I do not suggest that in this debate we could talk about long-term solutions; we are now concerned with the pay pause, which is a small and temporary matter, but one of vital importance to our economy. Hon. Members opposite are quite sincere in their opposition to it. That means, in effect, that they have a sincere desire for a return to inflation and devaluation. That is why I sought to put my name to the Amendment and help in its drafting. I believe that it will give the Minister a more direct responsibility to take Lord Robens out of his present difficult position, and give the Minister the gentlest power to take upon himself responsibility for the policy of the Chancellor.
I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend has gone a little further than he went previously. I am glad that we have had some publicity in the matter. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not only consider whether the Amendment is well meant—although extremely badly drafted—but will also realise that a long-term problem is involved, and that there is no economic motive for the Coal Board's heeding what the Government are trying to do economically. This is a problem worthy of a solution. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Easington agrees.

Mr. J. Griffiths: By rising now I do not wish it to be taken as a sign that the debate should end. Before you took the Chair, Sir Herbert, the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) ranged far and wide in moving the Amendment. He raised the question whether the coal mining industry should be publicly or privately owned in future. At this stage, I do not intend to trespass upon your kindness to discuss that, except to say, since the hon. Member mentioned it, that I would be very happy if the House could debate this question on a Motion that was acceptable.
I have spent a good part of my life in the mining industry. At the end of


two wars we have had to face the problem of its future organisation. At the end of the First World War we had the Coalition Government, composed of members of the party opposite and some liberals. In those days I was an officer of the National Union of Mineworkers, at local level, and the Government told us "We will submit this matter to a Royal Commission. You can give evidence, and everybody else concerned can give evidence, and the Commission can recommend what the future of the industry should be." The Royal Comcission recommended nationalisation, but this recommendation was rejected by the then Government. Looking back on my life, I believe that one of the greatest disasters in our industrial history was the rejection of the Sankey Report.
I now come to modern times. During the Second World War we were again confronted with the question of the future of the coalmining industry. The industry, under private enterprise, had then been in the doldrums for twenty-five years. Very few pits had been sunk. More than 500,000 men had left the industry. The country found itself confronted with the challenge of war and desperately short of coal. The then Government, again a Coalition Government which this time included members of my own party, set up a committee to look at the technical position of the mining industry after twenty-five years of depression.
I invite the right hon. Gentleman to re-read the Report. This is where we began. This is where my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) began when he became Minister of Fuel and Power. The first thing which was put on his table was the Reid Report, showing that, technically, the coal industry was near bankruptcy; that under private ownership there was no hope of finding the necessary resources or the skill to rebuild the industry. I say, therefore, that had it not been for the action of the Labour Government, and of my right hon. Friend, in 1947, we should not now be discussing the industry in this quiet atmosphere. We should have had fifteen years of turmoil and strife which would have brought the industry to ruin.
I speak as one who, for many years, had the privilege of sharing responsibility with my colleagues. I say to the hon. Member for Kidderminster and to other hon. Members, that if they wish to debate whether the industry should remain nationalised or not, by all means let them do so. Let us have such a debate. But I am certain that the industry has no future, except as a publicly-owned industry.
Governments of the party opposite have been in power for ten years and have fought three elections. If hon. Members opposite are convinced that the answer to the problems of the mining industry is that it should return to private ownership, why do not they put that in their election programme? They put the denationalising of the steel industry in their programme, and they carried it out. Why do they not do the same with regard to the coal industry? The answer is, they know that, if they did, no one would "buy", because of the position in which the industry was left under private ownership during the twenty-five years in which I had experience of it.
The Minister has made an important statement. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has carried the pay pause further than any other Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I am expressing my own view. I do not want to misrepresent the Minister. He said that he had conveyed the view of the Government to Lord Robens, Chairman of the National Coal Board. The chairman is to be asked by the National Union of Mineworkers, in accordance with its agreement, to discuss wages. As we understand it, the view of the Government is that it is undesirable, that it would be against their wishes, for the chairman of the Board to offer, or to give, any increase in wages and salaries to the mine workers, even though this were justified by an increase in productivity.
That is what the Minister said today. I do not recall the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the author of the pay pause, putting forward such a view. This is the first time that we have heard it. Let us get this thing right. What is the policy of the Government? Is it that when the Minister conveys the view of the Government regarding wages to


Lord Robens, he will say, "the view of the Government is that it would be very undesirable and wrong for you to offer any increase in wages at all to the miners, even though output and productivity has increased." Is that the advice to be given to Lord Robens?
I declare my interest in this matter. I am a member of the National Union of Mineworkers. As Lord Robens has said to the Minister, if the right hon. Gentleman gives him directions, he will have to tell the N.U.M. But if the Minister gives advice to the Chairman, let us get clear what is to be the advice. I think that Lord Robens, also, is under a moral obligation to tell the National Union of Mineworkers what is the advice of the Government. Suppose that in putting forward their case the representatives of the union tell Lord Robens, "We ask for this increase in wages for the reason, first, that productivity has increased." They will call in evidence of that, as has been said both by the Minister and by the Parliamentary Secretary. In the last four or five weeks the output of the coal miners has been as high as it was—I believe that it has been higher—in the comparable period of last year; and that with 24,000 fewer men in the industry.
I ask the Minister: what other industry, private or public, can equal that record? Let us get the facts and figures. Here we have an industry, in which there are 24,000 fewer men than last year, which is producing more. If every industry in the country could say the same, the Chancellor would not have to bother about imposing a pay pause or about an economic crisis. If the mine-workers argue that they are entitled to an increase, and put forward a claim because of the increase in productivity, is the advice of the Minister to Lord Robens to be, "Do not give it"?
That is what I understood the Minister to say; that if the miners were entitled to a wage increase because of a productivity increase they should not be given an increase. As I understood Government policy—with which I do not agree—it is that earnings and wages should increase in proportion to productivity. But the Minister has said that even though productivity increase in this industry, there must not be an increase in wages—

Mr. Nabarro: Mr. Nabarro rose—

Mr. Griffiths: I will give way in a moment.
At present, I am commenting on what the Minister said and I have not noticed that the Minister wishes to interrupt me. But if the hon. Member wishes to do so, I will give way in a moment. I am anxious to get this matter cleared up. The hon. Member for Kidderminster has asked about 20 questions and I have not asked anything like that amount.
5.15 p.m.
Miners all over the country will read reports of this debate and they will ask those of us here who represent the miners whether this is what it all means; whether the Government are saying that even though their output has been increased the miners are still to be kept down. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that I have recently called attention—I am now proposing to go on to the question of manpower and perhaps the hon. Member for Kidderminster would care to interrupt, if he has anything to say regarding my previous point.

Mr. Nabarro: The burden of everything which the right hon. Gentleman is saying—unless I am mistaken—is exactly in support of the second Amendment which appears in my name.

Mr. Griffiths: No.

Mr. Nabarro: It is exactly in support.

Mr. Griffiths: The Minister has made an important statement and I come now to my second question. I am sure that representatives of the N.U.M. will tell the Minister that they think it desirable—indeed, it may become necessary—to offer a wage increase—this is in addition to the other reasons I have given—because unless that is done, workers will not stay in the pits. Let us be frank about this. The situation is very serious. Sometimes I feel that the serious view which I have of this matter is not shared by the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. But I have spent a long time in the industry and I feel deeply concerned about it.
I have quoted figures before, and I will quote them again now. In the South Western Division, which includes South Wales and my own constituency, it was


reported last week that for the last 17 weeks 771 men have left the industry voluntarily. In round figures, that is 50 a week, which would amount to between 2,500 and 3,000 a year. If that trend goes on, what will happen at the end of the year for which we are providing this £50 million, or, if the hon. Gentleman gets his way, at the end of the half year for which we are providing £25 million? Given all the oil, including that which the hon. Member proposes to buy to provide him with central heating—

Mr. Nabarro: I have bought it.

Mr. Griffiths: Very well, given all that, and the gas from the Sahara, we shall still have a position in which, for many years, coal will remain the lifeline of the economy and the industry of this country. There are various views about what proportion of energy it will supply. However, by far the largest proportion of the energy for industry for as far ahead as we can see must come from coal. That is not disputed by anyone. We cannot get coal without men. That is why I have raised this question. That is why the men will raise it.
I cannot blame the men for leaving the industry. Some of them are my constituents. The coal mining industry is unique among all industries. It is always dependent for its manpower upon mining families. No other industry is in this position. This has been true of coal mining throughout its whole history. If fathers and mothers become anxious about the future of their sons if they allow them to go into the industry, and if they advise and urge them not to go, and prevent them going, before long we shall not be discussing quietly the Committee stage of a Bill of this kind. We shall be discussing the most serious crisis the industry has ever faced. The industry is losing manpower at such a rate that it will not be able to provide the coal the nation requires. The Board has the obligation laid upon it to provide coal for the nation.

Mr. Ridley: If an increase is granted for this reason, will not the immediate action be that all the other industries in the neighbourhood will grant an increase? Then we shall be back exactly where we were before. We shall have gained nothing except inflation.

Mr. Griffiths: I am not arguing the merits or demerits of the pay pause. I am against it. It is a stupid policy. It is cowardly for the Government to use it against those least able to hit back, namely, those in the public service. I am discussing the coal industry, its future and its manpower position. I am relating this to the question of wages. What the industry needs now more than anything is a sense of security and stability. The Parliamentary Secretary, who was a colliery general manager, knows I speak the truth when I say that in every mining village in the country—it is no good looking elsewhere for coal miners—there must be confidence that the industry will receive fair play and will get a chance.
It is all right to talk about throwing the industry to the wolves of free competition now, but for thirty years my colleagues in the N.U.M. and I served a trade union in which all the weight was against us. All the power was on the other side. After the Second World War my old colleagues in the N.U.M. found themselves with power in their hands for the first time. The Board found itself producing a commodity which was in short supply for the first time in peacetime for about thirty years. If the doctrine of commercialistm and free competition had operated then and the Board had been allowed to use the advantage of the market in the 1940s, we should not today be bothering about £25 million. There would be much more than that in the "kitty".
But in those days all Governments—the Government of which I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington were members and Governments formed by the party opposite—prevented the Board reaping the advantages of commercialism. Hon. Members opposite cannot deny that. They said that prices must be controlled by the Government. The miners say, "This is what the Tory Party does. There must be no commercial advantage when it is for us, the miners, but there must be commercialism when it is against us." That is what the miners say and believe. They are right. In those days the Board answered the nation's call and was, indeed, subject to the nation's will in prices.
For thirty years my old colleagues on the N.U.M. had been the under-dogs,


under the lash of coalowners, assisted by the party opposite, with no power in their hands, except to beg for an increase here and there. I took part in a great national campaign for a £2 a week minimum wage for miners when tens of thousands of miners were working six days a week and taking home less than £2 a week. After the war the N.U.M. found itself with power in its hands for the first time, but it did not use it to exploit the country. I am very proud of the union. It used its power far more responsibly than the coalowners used their between the wars. The union showed an example.
The Minister must realise that the industry will be required for many years. It will be absolutely essential to the life blood of the country. It will need men, and they must come from mining families. Now we must listen to all these attacks upon the Board, all the doubts which have been expressed, all the directives to Lord Robens, and all that we have heard today and heard on Second Reading. Parents in mining villages are saying to themselves, "What is the good of sending our boys to the pits? Have we any guarantee that they will not be thrown on the road in ten years' time as their fathers were thrown on the road at the age of 50 when they were too old to learn another trade and go to another job?" This question is already being asked and answered. It is being answered by men leaving the pits and by many youngsters refusing to go to the pits.
This is the real issue. It is not the Amendment and all this triviality about £50 million or £25 million. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary know that unless we give the industry security, dignity and fair play now, there will be no men in the years ahead. If a time arrives when there are no men, it may very well be the end of this country as a great industrial power. Coal is still its life blood. That is why I hope that the Minister will carefully consider my experiences of the past and my assessment of the present position. He must not be so definite in his instructions to Lord Robens, because if we are to get the coal we need Lord Robens will have to take account not only of productivity, but also of the industry's desperate need to retain its manpower. It will not be

able to do this if it is subjected to such attacks as we heard last week and again today.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: The The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) always addresses the House of Commons with great sincerity, which we all recognise, on this important industry, to which he has given a lifelong service. I certainly do not wish to detract from any honour which is due to him on that account. However, in relation to the increase in output per man shift—in other words—higher productivity—which he referred to, and which we are all delighted to see, I want to point out that we must, in all fairness, take into account the immense capital which since the war has been invested in the mines.
Without in any way denigrating what has been achieved and what the men have done, in my view it would be shameful if the industry had not made this achievement after all these years and after all the money which has been put into it. It is now beginning to pay off for the national good.
It is true that the nation cannot get coal without men. I accept that in the context in which the right hon. Member made the statement, but we must also remember that we cannot get trade for this country unless we are competitive. We must bear these factors in mind, because connected with them is a question which has already been asked by several hon. Members and which the Minister did not answer today. Of course, I appreciate the difficulty of answering the question—put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)—whether the industry is to be run as a social or a commercial enterprise.
If the accent is on the latter, it must be remembered that competitiveness involves the use of all sorts of fuels, for certain industries which used solely coal at one time have switched to other fuels to make them more competitive in price. Thus the question must be asked: will the coal industry get the trade? Then, of course, if not, the coal industry dies, and it will not die as a result of the policies of this House in this sense, but of itself; in not being


competitive and able to stand up to world competition.
When my right hon. Friend tried to justify the need for the additional £50 million—which is the purpose of the Bill and in which the Amendments seek a reduction—he referred hon. Members to the debate last Wednesday. My right hon. Friend said on that occasion:
The position this year is quite different. I have already told the House of Commons, last month, that a further deficit this year is certain. I find it very difficult even at this late stage in the year to attempt a precise estimate, but what I said last month was that
'a relatively small further loss at the end of this year … will bring the Board's accumulated deficit beyond its probable internal resources and the £20 million borrowing limit taken together.'—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1961; Vol. 646, c. 759–60.]
I pointed out that this was a serious situation and promised that if legislation were necessary I would bring proposals as soon as possible before the House of Commons."
Very germane to the whole question is how these figures come about, because later on in his speech my right hon. Friend said:
I will now do my best to try to make the position plain about the £50 million.
This is the second time that my right hon. Friend referred to this £50 million aspect.
At the end of this year, the Board's internal funds will probably be about £60 million, and the accumulated deficit is likely to be rather over £90 million."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 449–50.]
I would like some further information on this, for while it is a matter of accountancy to a great degree, I assume that it is a balancing deficit of £90 million. I equally assume that the £60 million, when my right hon. Friend referred to
… the Board's internal funds will probably be about £60 million …
is, in fact, cash—or something we can turn into cash. If so—and the statement is by no means plain if that is not the case—there is no substance whatever in the arguments we have heard today to show that £25 million will not see us through this period. Thus, we should be given more information on this point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster mentioned several other points, and although I did not understand all of his 20 questions—because

I do not follow everything in the same detail as does my hon. Friend—I believe that we should have more knowledge of what this £50 million really means. It has been said that the Amendment, or even the Bill, should not have been necessary because, after all, the Conservative Party has been in power for a long time and should know what it is doing with regard to the coal industry.
What we keep on doing is rather like a banker who does not know quite what to do about an investment—whether to put money in to save the money that was unwisely put in before, and give handouts of £50 million from time to time without any real or proper plan. Is the industry to be carried on in a commercial way, or is it to be a social service? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly made clear his accent on the latter aspect. He is entitled to his view, but the question needs answering as a matter of Government administration.
We are getting rather tired of the perpetual hand-outs of sums with the perpetual explanations that are supposed to make things plain, but which make nothing clear. Because it is time that we got some understanding and were relieved of the embarrassing position in which the Government insist on putting their supporters, like myself, I believe that the first Amendment, as a matter of principle, should be pressed. I appreciate, concerning the second Amendment, that the words seem to be amiss. They were aimed, however, at dealing with the pay pause.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who, I regret, is now out of the Chamber, remarked that the Government had no right to interfere with anything to do with wages. I should like to get that point cleared up. That was a reason for the wording of the second Amendment; that we believe that the Government should have that right—in wages, dividends, rents, and so on—if the economic situation finally requires it. It is absurd that anything should go on record to suggest that the Government, when faced with possible violent inflation or anything of the like, should not have the right, in the last analysis, to interfere in any direction that may be necessary to secure the economy and employment of our people.
In the debate last Wednesday, the Parliamentary Secretary made a somewhat remarkable speech. I listened to a great deal of that debate and to all of my hon. Friend's speech, although I did not think a great deal of it. He seemed to put up Aunt Sallys so that he himself could knock them down. He said:
I am speaking to those who care to accept it. I and the Government accept responsibility for making the industry successful. We have had it for ten years now, as my hon. Friend said, and it is our job to make it successful. All our efforts are directed to that end."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 558.]
The Bill, however, does not make the industry successful.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, on the other hand, went so far as to say that it did not purport to make the industry successful and I hope that we shall be relieved of the necessity, year after year, of having to come forward with amendments to the Government's policy. This is embarrassing and it does not achieve anything because there is not the will and the power to get things achieved. As I say, it is about time that we were relieved of this responsibility and of this embarrassing business of trying to show to the Government just what is their duty in this matter.

Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who moved the Amendment, seemed to be in a state of disarray because the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) has just said that he was still pressing the first Amendment, although he was doubtful about the second. The hon. Member for Kidderminster, however, was doubtful about the first Amendment, but still wished to press the second. They do not seem to have co-ordinated their plans. Whether the hon. Member for Kidderminster will press either of them we shall have to wait and see.
However, I prefer to start with the Minister himself, because I believe that he excelled himself this afternoon. I said on Second Reading that I thought the right hon. Gentleman was the most agreeable of Ministers, and I would not like to withdraw that compliment so soon. But the statement the right hon. Gentleman made today was remarkable. It is remarkable that during the Com-

mittee stage of a Bill dealing with the coal industry we should have a new pronouncement about the pay pause generally. I will try to show why I believe the Minister has carried the argument of the pay pause somewhat further. First, let me say that I think the right hon. Gentleman is an adornment to the Front Bench—the best velvet glove in the Ministerial wardrobe. Today, however, he is being used to turn the screw of the pay pause, and this is a serious matter.
As I watch the antics of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, I cannot help sometimes feeling that he must be in the pay of either the Government or the Conservative Central Office. He must have had an increase in pay recently.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order, Dr. King. Is it not grossly out of order to impute that an hon. Member has a pecuniary gain from an office which he does not hold? Are you not aware that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) has just suggested that I am in the pay of the Government, which I am not, and nothing to do with it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—or of the Central Office, and that I have even less to do with that? Could you not ask the hon. Member to withdraw at once the opprobrious allegation?

Mr. Foot: If it is an opprobrious allegation—

Mr. Nabarro: May I have an answer, Dr. King?

The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Horace King): I understand that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) who is addressing the Committee is speaking on the same point of order.

Mr. Foot: If it is an opprobrious allegation against an hon. Member to say that he is a member of the Government or of the Central Office, I withdraw it. Maybe the hon. Member is performing the services unpaid.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Foot: The service that the hon. Member performs for the Government is this. Many of us have very deep quarrels with the Government. We think that they are making a mess of the coal industry and that there are


complaints to be made against them, but when we listen to the hon. Member for Kidderminster we may think that we are better off with the Government. Therefore, the hon. Member does perform that service for the Government at least and we may be thankful that he is not in charge of the fuel affairs of this country.
It is rather peculiar that we should be taking these two Amendments together. I do not wish to criticise the Ruling which was given earlier, but it seems that there are two very distinct principles involved in the two Amendments.

Mr. Nabarro: That is what I said.

Mr. Foot: I am not complaining against the hon. Member for Kidderminster putting them down as two separate Amendments. They involve two separate questions. The first concerns the question of a total amount and, as the hon. Member has said, the second is directly concerned with the pay pause. I should have thought that those two matters were distinct.
On the first matter, hon. Members opposite have tried to pretend that their sole interest is to guard the nation's finances, to see that no money is wastefully spent, to ensure that a diligent scrutiny is maintained over every penny that the Government spend. If they were not so selective in their interests I would be prepared to give them more credit for what they claim in that respect, but they do not mind when £20 million extra is paid out in respect of unearned income to Surtax payers. That is what is to happen next year under the Budget which was introduced this year.
The £20 million paid out in respect of unearned income would have been quite sufficient to make a great contribution to putting the coal industry into a better position, but no complaint was made by hon. Members opposite in that respect. I also remember that when the House voted £20 million for the new Cunard liner, which is not to be built, hon. Members opposite did not vote against that.

Mr. Ridley: I do not know whether the hon. Member is referring to me, but I abstained on that occasion.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Member abstained and the Government got their Bill. The hon. Member must not say that he made a bold stand against the £20 million for the new Cunarder. The Government did not care a fig for the abstention. If the hon. Member had joined some of us who divided the House on the question he might have been able to intervene with more relevance.
The fact is—and I say it to hon. Members opposite, who are making their claim in respect of the first Amendment that they are diligent in watching that every penny should be spent properly—that hundreds of millions of pounds can be voted for private industry, but they never turn up to vote against that. Yet in cases where moneys of this nature are under attack, they turn up eagerly.
They are not watchdogs for the taxpayer, but much more often jackals for private interests. We have those representing oil interests and other interests arguing for those interests. They are not arguing them as straight matters of public finance, and I do not believe that in this case they are actuated by that principle. Time and again the same hon. Members, for the most part in coal debates, wish to throw as much mud as possible at nationalised industry. One of the questions which were put by the hon. Member for Kidderminster revealed that clearly.
The second Amendment raises much more serious issues than anything concerned with the antics of the hon. Member for Kidderminster.

Mr. Nabarro: Do not be rude.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Foot: The second Amendment raises the whole question of the operation of the pay pause. What we had in the Second Reading debate, and what has been illustrated even more clearly in this debate—that the actual wage negotiations which are now supposed to he proceeding should be discussed in such detail with ministerial pronouncements during a Committee stage of a Bill—seems something of a novelty. I can understand questions about a pay pause being discussed when we are debating a Ministry of Labour Vote, or in a debate initiated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to have a series of debates in which the


Minister reveals, and underlines to the Committee, what he has been saying to the Coal Board on the subject of wages seems something of a novelty.
We should examine this much more closely than the eleventh question put by the hon. Member for Kidderminster. I hope that I have got his numbering right. He asked the Minister to say whether he accepted the principle that wage increases should be given only in respect of an increase in productivity and, if so, how that fitted in with the pay pause? I think that that, roughly, was the question the hon. Member asked.

Mr. Nabarro: Question No. 11, to be answered seriatim— to which my right hon. Friend neglected to reply—was, and I quote: Does the Minister accept the principle of increased pay, for increased productivity, and if so, on an individual basis, or on a collective basis for the whole industry?

Mr. Foot: That is roughly what I said, but in rather better English. I have abbreviated the question. The reply of the Minister was an extremely interesting one. I understood him to agree with the general view that wages should not rise out of proportion with productivity as a general economic principle, but I think that he went on to say—I do not say that I have his exact words—that if his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster said that the Government would have no objection to increases of wages if productivity were achieved, that might be an encouragement to wage increases. He said something like that. In other words, he was saying that even if there is productivity there should be no wage increase and that he did not wish, by any hint he might give to the Coal Board in this Committee, to suggest that miners should be entitled to wage increases even if there were increased productivity.
An hon. Member then said that in that case we ought to vote for the Amendment because it implied that if there were an increase in productivity there ought to be an increase in wages. The position of the hon. Member for Kidderminster in this case appears to be better than that of the Government, but his claim is not sufficient for us. As has been very powerfully argued by my

right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), it may be that the paramount reason why the Coal Board should break the pay pause is not primarily because of an increase in productivity, but because of the lack of manpower. The proposition by the hon. Member for Kidderminster does not deal with that.
We all know the reason why the hon. Member for Kidderminster and his hon. Friends are interested in these things. The Minister made it all the worse by his answer. This is the "Not a Penny Extra for the Miners" Clause. I daresay that the hon. Member for Kidderminster might even have done this in concert with the Minister. They want to have a display in the House of Commons showing that there is strong opposition from many quarters here—by which they mean the hon. Member for Kidderminster and his hon. Friends—against any departure from the pay pause in the case of miners. The Minister is quite eager to encourage that. Indeed, he goes further and says that even if there is an increase in productivity he does not think the Coal Board ought to give the miners an increase in wages.

Mr. Wood: I did not say that at all.

Mr. Foot: He comes very near to it. This is a question of semantics. If we say to the Minister, "You have given instructions to the Coal Board," he denies it, but he came very near to it in this debate, as he did in the debate the other day. The Parliamentary Secretary, at the end of the debate last week, saw some of the troubles which the Government were running into, and he talked about the full and free negotiations in which the Coal Board was about to engage. He went on:
As for my right hon. Friend binding himself to a certain course in the event of the wages issue going to arbitration, my right hon. Friend will not prejudge the issue to any extent. The question of what he would or would not do is not an issue today, and it may never arise." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 556–7.]
What is it that the Minister himself said? He went as near as possible to saying, without actually giving an instruction, to the Coal Board and its Chairman, that he could not give an


increase. How much nearer could he go than that? He said:
… hon. Members ask how much influence in these circumstances the Government should try to exert on the Board.
The Prime Minister has already made perfectly plain the importance which the Government attach to the pay pause, and the Government have made their view perfectly clear to the leaders of the nationalised industries. I am myself quite satisfied that Lord Robens fully understands the Government's view. More particularly, where an industry is dependent on Exchequer support to meet current losses, the Government would expect its Board to take this into account in wage negotiations.
Where, in the words of the Prime Minister,
the Government are acting both as adviser and as banker.'
it is not unreasonable for the Government to expect the nationalised industries to pay particular attention to its views."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1961; Vol. 650. c. 456–7.]
I do not think that he could go much nearer to an instruction than that, particularly when we know the sanction which the Government are apparently prepared to apply.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Which sanction?

Mr. Foot: One sanction is that the Prime Minister comes to the House of Commons and abuses the Chairman of a Board which happens to be responsible for carrying out its duties under other parts of the Act.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It did not deter him.

Mr. Foot: I agree that it did not deter him in that case, and I hope that it will not deter the Chairman of the Coal Board in this case.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It is not a sanction.

Mr. Foot: It is a sanction in this case, and the noble Lord should not be so simple in this matter. Hon. Members know what would happen. If Lord Robens tells the Government to go where they ought to go, Lord Robens may find that he will have a lot of difficulties from the Government—a lot of difficulties from the Coal Board's bankers. They are saying it as clearly as they can.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have had a lot of experience of banking, and they know that a banker does not have to

say to his client, "If you behave like that, you will not get any more from me," but that he can make it very clear. So what the hon. Gentleman is saying is clearly an instruction to the Chairman of the Coal Board "If you do not abide by my advice and the influence which I try to exert"—and the other phrases which the right hon. Gentleman uses—"there will not be any cash forthcoming. if any further money is required to carry out wage increases, you will not get it."
Is not that an instruction to the Chairman of the Coal Board? It is the Government who are deciding what are to be the wages in the coal industry, and they certainly are not fit to decide that issue, because we have seen for months past, and it was proved on Second Reading, that the Government's forecasting about manpower has been completely mistaken.
That is one of the reasons why we have this Bill and for what it is proposed to do in the Bill. A few months ago there was a crisis which the Minister of Power said would not happen. It has happened, partly a financial and partly a manpower crisis, neither of which the Minister of Power foresaw. We have had the crisis, and the Government say that they will put a bit more money into the nationalised industries, but in the meantime they have put on the screw as much as they dare and have said to the Chairman of the Coal Board, "You can do what you like as long as you do not spend any more money on wages." Hon. Gentlemen opposite try to enforce this method of running the great nationalised industries.
Personally, and for other reasons as well, I think that it would be much better if direct responsibility for the conduct of the coal industry rested in this House; then we should not have all this double talk. We could make this House much more accountable for this industry. This case is proved, because in the pay pause, as it affects the mining industry, we are soaked in all this hypocritical language which we have had from the Minister, who says that he has given no instructions when, in fact, he has, through the threat to withdraw the bankers' order.

Mr. D. Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister whether he is not aware


that hon. Members from mining constituencies on this side of the Committee pleaded with his predecessor for greater public accountability of this industry, but that hon. Members opposite poured cold water on the suggestion and would not have it?

Mr. Foot: I am grateful for that intervention from my hon. Friend. For some years many hon. Members on this side urged that point. The previous Member for Ebbw Vale was one of the chief advocates of the doctrine that the nationalised industries should be made much more accountable to this House. We should then be spared the situation which we have now, when the Minister is giving instructions to the Board, although he tries to pretend that he is not doing anything of the kind.
As long as the general structure remains and the Government are pretending that they are not intervening, they should refrain from making the kind of statement which the right hon. Gentleman made during his Second Reading speech and which he has reiterated in even more dangerous terms today. I wonder what he thinks will be the effect in the mines of his remarks about no wage increase even if there is an increase in productivity? Does he think that they will be of assistance? The right hon. Gentleman has only one cure for the problems of the coal industry. He phrases it very nicely, in different language in different debates, but it is the point that he wants more mechanisation. That is the whole of his policy for the coal industry.
More mechanisation may assist. Increased productivity may assist. But there are many other problems in the coal industry, such as the problem of which pits we are to keep open and how we are to finance the industry. If we look at this series of debates which we have had, at the last two in particular, but at many more previously, time and again the fact has been exposed from this side that one additional burden after another has been placed upon the Coal Board—quite a different form of burden from that placed on any other industry in this country.
We never get an answer from the Minister. He never says that he thinks that it is right in principle that the Coal

Board should pay the £70 million for coal imports. He never says that he thinks that it is right in principle that the burden of carrying stocks should be placed on the Coal Board rather than on the nation, which it was helping to serve. These arguments of principle are brushed aside by the Minister.
What both the Front and back benchers opposite want to do is to keep a nationalised industry—and the most essential nationalised industry in the country—in a situation of permanent financial subordination. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They want to squeeze it persistently.
The last thing hon. Gentlemen opposite want is to see the Coal Board succeed. We can hardly blame them for that, in a sense, because the more successful it is the less they can talk about it. If we look at the facts, and if we weed out all the half-baked theories and cooked figures of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, we see that it is a great success story, despite all the difficulties.
6.0 p.m.
Hon. Members opposite do not want the Board to succeed. They could not put that in the week-end notes which they give to the hon. Member for Kidderminster. They do not want him to go round the country saying that the industry has a success story. In these debates, therefore, hon. Members on the Government back benches are in a conspiracy with those on the Front Bench in trying to keep the Coal Board in a position in which it is never free to expand and develop as it should be allowed to expand and develop. The time has come when we must make it clear to the country that the responsibility for the conduct of this industry does not rest primarily with the Coal Board. In his Second Reading speech the other day, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
I and the Government accept responsibility for making the industry successful."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 558].
But the Government have not been very successful in that respect in the last three or four years. The coal industry is faced with an entirely new situation, which the Government pretended had come to an end a few months ago, but which has not come to an end.
First, we must reject the absurd Amendments put down by hon. Members opposite. I suppose that they do not even intend to press them to a Division, although the hon. Member for Kidderminster started by saying that his 20 questions would reveal the great gulf which existed between him and the Government. If there is such a gulf he might reveal it in the Division Lobby, but we shall have to wait to see whether he is prepared to go into the Lobby.
In fact, there is very little distinction between the hon. Member and the Government, and he will be satisfied with the Minister today because the Minister has clearly said what the hon. Member for Kidderminster desired him to say—that he is using all his influence, all his advice, all his bankers' instructions, to try to prevent a single penny from being given to the miners, when probably the only thing which can save this industry is for the miners to get a substantial wage increase at a very early date.

Mr. Skeet: We have listened to an exercise in sophistry which even the ancient Greeks could not have surpassed. I liken the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) to a man chasing hares in all directions and running himself off the map. He imagines that he is the sole custodian of the public conscience, and he seems to think that simply by giving the miners a substantial increase in wages at this time when the National Coal Board cannot afford it the mines will remain open in the future. His policy would inevitably lead along the road to ruin. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) mentioned the possibility that the increase in coal prices in Scotland would have an adverse effect and would let more fuel oil into the country. In that case, it would be less profitable for the National Coal Board and the industry would contract even further. We are trying to help my right hon. Friend to reconstruct the mining industry. I point out that in the United Kingdom 74 per cent. of the total energy is supplied by coal and only 24 per cent. by oil, and that is likely to continue for many years. It is therefore wrong to say that my hon. Friend and I are not interested in the success of the National Coal Board. In the debate only last week I said that I should like to see it very successful, and

the way to make it successful is to contract the industry even further. There will be a decline in manpower until it becomes so competitive that it can stand up against its various competitors in the fuel market.
My right hon. Friend has indicated the Government's view about wages. A wage pause is not new. We had it under Cripps, and there is one in France today. We are trying to sustain the value of the £. But we have been given no encouragement by hon. Members opposite. They are the people who allowed the £ to be devalued in September, 1949, and we can expect no sound advice from them today.
I did not put my signature to the second Amendment because I did not consider it consonent with the Government's policy. We have declared our views about the wage increase in the electricity industry. This pause is a freeze until early next year. Whether it is to the advantage of the Coal Board to give wage increases and to drive the industry into a less profitable situation is for the Board to decide. The next point to decide is when the increases which is given as a result of arbitration should operate. While the wage pause continues or the freeze continues, there should be no increase on any side.

Mr. William Ainsley: Will the hon. Member tell us who approved a policy whereby the National Coal Board planned for 240 million tons of coal a year? In this planning they must spend money with a view to developing the coal industry.

Mr. Skeet: There was a programme for 240 million tons of coal a year. It was made by the Government of the day. I was not a party to it, and at the time I considered it to be entirely wrong, although I had no opportunity of expressing my views in the House. I have also said that an annual production of 200 millions tons a year now is entirely wrong. Let me proceed with my argument.
If only the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, reads the newspapers, he will find exactly what the Government's policy has been on the wages pause. If he refers to the Financial Times of 30th November, he will see it stated that three of the four major oil companies have


made a breach in the Government's pay pause by granting wage increases for 6,500 of their workers on the basis of
recognition of improved productivity . . in the implementation of improved work-planning and procedures for greater efficiency over the last year.
They broke the freeze. The oil companies have thus been very unhelpful and most unwise, and while increases are given to other people it is extremely difficult to persuade the miners that they should have no increases at this stage.
I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that when we speak on this subject we have the national interest in view and we do not hesitate to make a comment if we find that the wage pause is being pierced. In the past, when there were negotiations, the employers could put forward their arguments and the workers, through their representatives, could put forward their arguments; but where does the public interest come in? Of course, my right hon. Friend cannot give a general direction about a specific wage increase, but he can mention to Lord Robens, "This is the Government's view, and we hope that you will take it into account and will observe that the national interest has to be considered as much as the interest of the miners."

Mr. Monslow: Will the hon. Member kindly indicate what he regards as a minimum in the present circumstances before the wage pause should apply?

Mr. Skeet: I hope that the wage pause will be lifted early next year, prior to the Budget. My view is that until it is lifted it should be a freeze. It should apply generally in order to be effective. There may be one or two, but very very few, exceptional cases.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Which are they?

Mr. Skeet: The mining industry, the electricity industry and the others over which we have immediate jurisdiction should not be exceptions.

Mr. Ainsley: The nationalised industries.

Mr. Skeet: As reported in the Sunday Times of 3rd December, Lord Robens said that
the decision to defer discussions
in the mining industry
has nothing to do with the pay pause. It is based on the economic position of the industry, combined with the time needed to assess such claims as that for shorter hours.
In other words, having looked at the matter carefully, he says that the delay has nothing to do with the wage pause. He will meet the miners' representatives not this year but later, and he will then assess the position. These are the matters operating in his mind. That is Lord Robens' view, having looked at the industry—because he wants to make a success of it, and so do we. But we want to make a success not only of the National Coal Board but also the running of the British economy. Let us not be driven by unfortunate remarks from hon. Members opposite into devaluing the £ for the second or, perhaps, the third time.
It could be argued, and argued effectively, that an exception might be made for Divisions 4 and 6, where a substantial colliery profit has been made. In Division No. 4, it was something like 8s. 2d. per ton and in Division No. 6, 9s. 8d. per ton. If one tries to calculate the increase in productivity in those isolated areas on the basis of the overall costs, it might be suggested that the miners there would be entitled to an increase. I cannot accept that contention, because it would pierce the pay pause.

Mr. Harold Finch: Increased productivity does not matter.

Mr. Skeet: Yes, it does matter, and it is of vital concern, but let us get over the pay pause first. That will give time for the wage rates in Europe to catch up and for strengthening of the £. Believe me, the continental countries have learnt that there is one thing which kills the hopes of the workers, the pensioners and the others, and that is the advance of inflation. We have yet, perhaps, to learn that lesson. If this appeal is put over to the miners and to their representatives, I think they will be conscientious in following the course which I have indicated.
It would not be appropriate for me to speak much longer, except to mention


that I favour the first Amendment. My right hon. Friend today gave figures to show that he is likely to spend beyond the internal resources of the Board to the extent of about £30 million by the end of the year. My right hon. Friend should lave £25 million for his industry. If he requires more, he should go to the banks for it and compete in the open market. He tells us that in the past, he has not been customary to the banks for a large sum of money—he probably would not get it—but if today we were to give him £25 million and he had to go to the banks for the remaining £5 million or £6 million, I do not think that he would have any difficulty. The obligation is upon my right hon. Friend to prove that he requires the money. To my satisfaction, he has specified a figure today of approximately £30 million.
We have to see that the industry is properly managed. The debates on this matter are all too infrequent. The last one was in October, but the one prior to that was many months ago. More frequent debates would have the advantage that we could review the operation of the development plans and of the progress of expenditure early in the New Year. That would be extremely advantageous, because many people are worried, not only on the industrial side, but also among the colliery workers in Scotland.
The other matter with which we are concerned—I mentioned it only last week—is the debt servicing which has risen from £21 million to over £40 million per annum. Are we to provide further moneys to be used in servicing the extremely heavy overheads which the Coal Board has to meet? We should have an answer on this.
I do not propose to vote for the Amendments; far from it—the Coal Board must have part of these advances. Nor do I concur with the sentiments originally expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster that my right hon. Friend the Minister should resign. On the contrary, I consider that he is doing an exceptionally good job in the most difficult circumstances. In some instances, he is not aided by certain representatives in the industry.
If only those people in the industry would face the situation which exists

and look at Europe a little more carefully, they would see some of the storms which lie ahead. If they are not prepared to allow the steel industry to become a little more competitive by having the chance of resorting to cheaper fuels, we may find that we shall have even greater difficulties internationally.

Mr. Monslow: Cheap miners.

Mr. Skeet: It is not cheap miners. We want the miners to survive. The arguments of hon. Members opposite would ruin the pits and the miners. If the miners do not have the opportunity of producing the coal, they cannot be paid. My idea is to have a smaller but thoroughly efficient mining industry. That could be achieved, but not by the policy we are now pursuing.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. J. Hill: I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet), who advised us to read the Press and see what is being said. What amazes me is that every time we speak in the House of Commons about the pay pause, hon. Members opposite seem to forget that there is another side to the pause to which no attention is being paid.
In the Press yesterday, I saw it forecast that A.T.V., which previously paid 24 per cent. dividend, now threatens to pay 90 per cent. If the Government say to the workers that they must accept the pay pause, surely it is only fair that they should tell the employers that they should accept a dividend pause. What I cannot understand about the pay pause is that if employees in an industry are awarded an increase but its application is delayed as long as the Government continue the pay pause, that increase is lost for that length of time, but when a dividend is frozen, it is only a matter of waiting until the pause is lifted, when it can be paid to the people who draw interest from it.
On the subject of dividends, I wish to say—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. It is in order to make references to the wage pause, but the hon. Member must apply his arguments on the wage pause to the miners and it is not in order for him to elaborate on the subject of dividends.

Mr. Hill: I apologise, Dr. King.
I am opposed to the Amendment. The hon. Member for Willesden, East may laugh, but I have as much reason to laugh at him when he speaks as he has to laugh at me now. In Scotland, the men who are leaving the coal industry are the young men. They leave because they have no security. If they do not get the increase of £1 a week for which they have asked, we will lose still more young men. The only person who would be satisfied with that situation would be the Secretary of State for War, because that would enable him to get the recruits he wants.
The men underground, for whom we are looking for an increase, take home less than £10 a week for five days' work underground. The surface worker takes home less than £9 a week. The hon. Member for Willesden, East told us that if the situation was put to the leaders of the National Union of Mineworkers, they would support the pay pause. There is nothing like being an optimist. As I read the signs, there is no possibility of the N.U.M. supporting the pay pause when its representatives go forward for their increase. I certainly hope that they do not support it.
Whenever we discuss the coal industry in the House of Commons, it seems that the budget must be balanced from the bottom. The miners, apparently, are not entitled to any increases, nor are they entitled to a shorter working day. It is remarkable how, when we discuss a nationalised industry, money is difficult to get, but that when we discuss money for private industry there is no trouble whatever. If the Government had put as much into the coal industry as into civil aviation, possibly the coal industry would be in a better state. They gave money to the cotton industry and were prepared to give it to shipbuilding.
When we talk about the industry being made to pay its way, I have yet to hear anyone from the benches opposite say that it is unfair that the former owners of the mines should still be drawing money from pits which they could not make pay when they owned them. They are getting more money now for sitting back and doing nothing than when they owned the pits. I cannot, in the face

of that increase, follow the logic of refusing to pay £1 a week more to the men working underground.
We think that the industry should be co-ordinated with the other fuel industries. The hon. Member talked about the increase in the price of coal in Scotland and its effects. If hon. Members opposite were honest and sincere in what they say about their wanting the industry to be a success they would not say what they do about oil or follow their present policy for the oil industry. They would use indigenous fuel and keep the coal mining industry alive. It is said that in Scotland pits are being closed because they are uneconomic. In the debate last week some hon. Members on this side tried to prove that some of the pits are not uneconomic and that they are being closed only because there is no sale for their coal. If this continues in Scotland the way it is now I can foresee the time, in the very near future, when we shall need to bring in a Crofters Bill not for the Highlands only but to cater for the whole of Scotland right down to the Clyde Valley, because other industry is not going there to take the place of the coal industry.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) made his usual nasty attack on a nationalised industry. We can understand why. It is because nationalisation is to him something which ought not to be allowed. Nationalisation is a dirty word, so he said. I would remind him that coal mining was a dirty word, but it is not a dirty word now. Nationalisation is and can be a success, and it would be better to help it to get on.
Mention has been made about what is happening on the Continent and how that will affect us here in this country. As I listened to the debate last week I felt convinced that hon. Members on the other side thought we were already in the Common Market. I watched a television programme about the Belgian coal industry. I can see some of the things happening there happening in this country, and some of the things happening elsewhere on the Continent happening in this country, if we are stupid enough to go into the Common Market.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Hear, hear. That is right.

Mr. Hill: I do not want to see that happen here. I am one of those who are convinced that we should not go into the Common Market, because, if we did, the industry I represent would go down farther than it is at the moment.

Mr. Alan Fitch: Not necessarily.

Mr. Hill: "Not necessarily" my hon. Friend says. He is entitled to his view. I am entitled to mine. I am expressing mine now. Nor is it necessarily true that those who live longest see the most.
I would suggest that one method of putting the industry back on its feet would he to get it reorganised by stopping paying interest to the former owners, because they have had plenty out of it—£300 million since vesting day. They have never had it so good. They have never had so much money in their lives. It is time to see that money ploughed back into the industry to meet some of its needs.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: The reason why I put down my name to these Amendments and spoke in the Second Reading debate was due to my profound shock at the pay settlement in the electricity industry. I know that we had the most reasonable and sincere promise from the Minister during the Second Reading debate, and it has gone a long way to allay fears about the future action of the Government, and I am grateful, too, for the explanation we had from the Dispatch Box this afternoon. I certainly cannot go along with my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) in asking for the Minister's resignation. Indeed, I hope that the Minister will be Minister of Power for a long time. I thought very carefully whether I should pursue this matter after the Minister had spoken the other day, but in the end I decided to put down my name to these Amendments because there were some furher points I wanted to make during this Committee stage, particularly on wages and productivity, and the second Amendment which we are discussing.
I want to bring home to the Committee the strength of feeling there is that wages should not go ahead of productivity. Surely it is in the national interest that we keep prices stable. How can this be done unless the national interest is taken

into account when wage increases are being considered? The Amendment does take this into consideration. I must say that for my part, at the beginning of the pay pause, and looking back on what has happened, I would have advised the Government, if I had had the advantage of hindsight, to have given a general direction to the nationalised industries that it would be in the national interest that wages should not go ahead of increases in production and that the Government would hope that in future this policy would be pursued by the nationalised industries. Surely that is just the kind of example needed throughout all industry today, as, indeed, the Report of the O.E.E.C. on Rising Prices and Productivity brought out just recently. It hinted about our wage negotiating machinery that at the present moment it was antiquated. Indeed, it went so far as to say this:
Given the antiquated nature of the institutional arrangements in a number of industries, the weakness of the central bodies on both sides, and a lack of and clearly defined norm for arbitrators to take as a guide when making awards, there can be no assurance that wage increases will be kept in line with the growth of the economy.
That is what is hinted at in the Amendment, and it tries to get in the nationalised industries a defined norm which the Government can give to industry and which will keep awards in line with productivity. It is the longer term policies which we are trying to aim at after the pay pause is ended, because in the long term what surely is needed is that we should establish a realistic relationship between the behaviour of incomes and the growth of production.
What we want now is not so much a pay pause, necessary as it is at the moment, but a continuing wages policy, something which shows that that would be just as much in the interests of trade union members as in the interests of the rest of the community. Cannot the Government see that the wages arbitration machinery needs one important modification? The modification would be to take the form of securing adequate representation of the national interest whenever adjustments in wages which were likely to have a significant bearing or otherwise on the economic health of the country were being negotiated. That is the idea behind this Amendment. We


want to try to find a norm to which to relate wage increases.
This was done in Australia a few years ago. On the Australian Government's insistence that it should be done, it has enabled wage settlements to be kept in relation to productivity. It is needed in this country, also, as the Report of the O.E.E.C., to which I have just referred shows.
6.30 p.m.
It is for this reason that I consider that we in this Committee should take account of the national interest. I do not want arguments bandied about from one side of the Committee to another on the subject of nationalisation. The situation is much too serious. The question is whether we should take into account the national interest instead of sectional interests and try to ensure increased productivity in the country as a whole rather than in one section of industry. We must take into consideration the needs particularly of those who have been hardest hit by inflation, and that means that we must place a great reliance on restraint at the moment. But that is only for the moment. We want a continuing wages policy based on a norm.

Mr. Willis: I am rather interested in the hon. Member's arguments. Would he allow consumers to be brought into consultation to decide what dividends should be paid?

Mr. Ridsdale: I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken about a national board to consider all these matters, and the door is open at any time for consumer, trade union and employers' interests to be taken into account as well as dividend restraint as a whole.

The Chairman: This is going far beyond the Amendment.

Mr. Ridsdale: I am grateful to you, Sir Gordon. I was led astray by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).
This, as I have said, was our purpose in tabling the second Amendment. As for the first, I have paid attention to what the Minister has said, and I see the force of his argument. I had hoped that

it would be possible to provide that we should be able to discuss the position of the Board in six months' time. On the second Amendment, I am grateful for having the opportunity of putting forward my point of view, but I do not want to press it at this stage, having been perfectly satisfied with what the Minister said today.

Miss Jennie Lee: When I first saw the second Amendment I was surprised to find it on the Order Paper. If I had been asked I should have said that it was out of order, but obviously I am wrong. It has been scrutinised with the aid of the special skill at the Table. If it is in order, it means that the Minister has it in his power to accept as well as reject it and we as a Committee have it in our power to accept it. If we accept it, it means that the Minister will be directly intervening in the fixing of wages in the mining industry.
Acceptance of the Amendment would mean that the Committee was attaching a condition to the £50 million advanced to the industry. The condition attached is that if any of the £50 million is used for increases of wages or salaries it must be paid back. The Minister has made clear that he does not want to accept the Amendment, but he has not made clear whether he objects to it entirely or whether he objects merely to the modification, allowed for by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and others, that wage and salary increases would be in order provided that they were related to higher productivity.
We on this side of the Committee do not accept that proposition in the Amendment. We want to go further. I am concerned, however, to have the Minister's position made clear. Is the Minister's attitude that he is willing to wound but he is not willing to strike? There was a famous occasion in the House of Commons when a former Conservative Prime Minister, the late Earl Baldwin, turned on some of our Press lords and said that they were claiming for themselves the privilege of the harlot throughout the ages—power without responsibility.
Charming things have been said from this side of the Committee about the Minister. I shall not quote names, and I am not concerned one way or the other


about these peccadilloes, but I am concerned about a situation in which a Minister of the Crown seeks to exert power but refuses to accept responsibility.
It would be a much more wholesome situation if we said, when we want fuller accountability to Parliament, that we are directly involved in wages and working conditions as well as other aspects of mining. That can be altered, but I do not like this present furtive situation in which the Minister assures us that he cannot intervene directly in wage negotiations—and we know that he has not the power to do so and it would he improper and illegal for him to attempt it—yet, having made that position clear, he then exercises the maximum moral pressure on the Coal Board to sustain the pay pause.
The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) expressed sentiments with which I agree. I gathered that he meant that the national interest should take precedence over sectional interests. I agree, and I should like that principle applied to the whole of industry. I should like to see a wages policy applied to the whole of British industry.
It is interesting to find that many arguments once totally rejected from the Government benches are now being tentatively examined and some of them even timidly accepted. I would not for a moment say that all hon. Members opposite think it right that there should be rising dividends in some industries and an ignoring of national interests in some parts of the economy. Many hon. Members opposite are tentatively seeking a way through these problems and they have come part of the journey. They now say that the national interest should take precedence over sectional interests.
Some have advocated a wages policy. I agree, but we cannot have a wages policy for one industry without having it for other industries. We cannot single out the mining industry. The Minister has not dared to do it. He knows that he would not dare accept the second Amendment, which enables the Minister to recover from these advances any amount of wage or salary increases not directly related to increases in productive efficiency.
Why does not the Minister dare take such a step? It is because he knows

that the men in the mining industry, angry as they are now, would be angrier still and that this would be the final explosion point. The essential sense of fair play in Britain is such that those employed in other industries would say, "You cannot apply one law to the mining industry which would not apply to cement, steel, and all the rest." Let us have a national wages policy by all means, but we cannot have a wages policy unless we have a profits policy. We cannot have a policy for wages and profits unless we are willing to decide about priorities. Where are our national resources to be spent?
You will recall, Sir Gordon, that a Labour Government, as well as a Conservative Government, appealed to the miners—successfully—to put the national interest above their sectional interest. Sir Stafford Cripps, in the distinguished work he did for Britain and for his party—although he was sometimes in his party and sometimes kicked out—had to say very grim things on occasion. He was fighting for our export trade in difficult circumstances, just as we have to fight for it now.
What the Government are saying to the miners now, however, is, "When you are in a seller's market you have to put the national interest before your sectional interest. Now, when the market is much stiffer, once again you have to put the national interest before your sectional interest." Is that not asking a bit too much? It is, however, at least something that we have reached the stage where we are even discussing such things.
When I vote for this £50 million at a later stage—I do not suppose that we are voting today—I shall vote with a sense of gratitude to the coal industry. I shall not vote believing that I have any right to nag the miners or read them a sermon. I shall feel that this money which is being paid back to help run the industry is only a small bit of what the miners gave to us in the years of the seller's market.
Perhaps the Government are bored with this point which has been made again and again from these benches—but however bored they may be they do not deny its truth or justice. We have been told again today by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and


others, as on Second Reading, that we must not forget, in the difficult situation in which the country finds herself, that any increase in the price of coal means an increase in the price of steel, timber and the rest. That is true. But it is equally true that any increase in the price of steel, iron, timber, bricks and cement, and of all the other raw materials needed by the mining industry, adds to the price of coal. Why is not the same sermon being read around the ring?

Mr. Ridley: None of the other industries mentioned by the hon. Lady has come to us for £50 million.

Miss Lee: Many other industries have come to Parliament for £50 million, but that is not the essence of this matter. The essence is that the present Government deliberately gave up an industry that can easily make profits—the steel industry—and that those profits are now going back into private hands. That is what I am talking about—the double economics of the Government in this matter.
I do not want to go back to my Second Reading speech, or to other speeches made on that occasion, but I think that the Minister is not so foolish or insensitive or tough not to be aware of the cruel fallacy running throughout his arguments. I do not think that his position is a very gentlemanly one.
If the right hon. Gentleman really believes that the miners have to put the national interest before the sectional interest—and I would agree with him there—he must also accept that that can be done only if the miners feel that they are marching as comrades, shoulder to shoulder with men and women of other industries, and are not being singled out again as the nation's scapegoats.

6.45 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: As a jackal of private interests—n the genial phrase of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot)—ho has campaigned from the start for a £4 million subsidy for the Cunarder, who rallied his party to support the Government in a £30 million scheme for cotton, who led deputations to Ministers in order that very large sums of public money could be poured into Colvilles, and who,

finally, has never said a word—quite the reverse—gainst the Local Employment Act, I rise to support these two Amendments in favour of denying certain moneys to the National Coal Board.
The Amendments are quite simple. The first is as plain as a pikestaff, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power understood it. The second Amendment he seemed to cavil at. I presume that his speech today was his own, but I detected some phraseology in it which I have known to emanate from Ministries in the past when they have understood something too well but have not liked the political sense of it. They resorted then to casuistry. That was all too apparent in my right hon. Friend's speech.
It is a curious Amendment and immediately I saw it— had no hand in drafting it—judged that it was the only sort of Amendment on the subject that could possibly pass the Table.

Mr. Nabarro: Yes.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) confirms that.
It is a curious Amendment because in effect it would penalise the National Coal Board twice over. The Board would have to pay the same amount back to the Minister as it paid out in increased wages to the miners. I should have thought that my right hon. Friend would have seen that it is not a watertight Amendment in the political sense but has a meaning in the direct sense—hat it is designed to stop the taxpayer's money going into wage increases. Why my right hon. Friend did not say as much and admit as much I do not know. Perhaps he will tell us if he replies to the debate.
My right hon. Friend said that he had not given general directions to the National Coal Board and was not going to give general directions to any Board under his administration. He certainly did not do so to the Electricity Council. I agree with that point of view and thoroughly approve it. If we start a process of ordering the nationalised industries to observe a particular aspect of Government policy, we are clawing back to the central Government industries and services which were never put in the midst of it by the Socialists when


they passed the legislation. It is also something which we, as Conservatives, should never dream of doing.
It is much better to disseminate these nationalised industries, to drive them away from the central Government, to break them up as we are doing with the railways, to allow them to go to market for their capital requirements, as is recommended, I believe, in the Herbert Report on electricity and in which we have gone some distance.
The whole philosophy of our approach—which is, I am glad to see, borne out in the decisions the Cabinet have made about wages and prices—is that we should recognise that these industries, as several Members opposite have pointed out, are in a hopelessly insecure position in the public weal where they are neither one thing nor the other. While Members opposite would like, if they were in power, to embrace them in the central Government in order to correct the mistakes—I believe that they think now that they were mistakes—which Lord Morrison perpetrated in this legislation, we should look to the reverse. But, though we have power, we are not doing the reverse. It is not because we are carrying out our philosophy at the pace and in the direction required that we are in the trouble we are.
We are in trouble that, as my right hon. Friend has not the power—and does not wish to have it—to give orders to the nationalised boards, he has to rely on moral persuasion. In fact, we are back again to that old business of Government by exhortation. Everybody is enjoined to become a little Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chairman of the Electricity Council is supposed to think on precisely the same lines as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Lord Robens is supposed to think in exactly the same terms, whether he has got the money to pay or not, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power. With the railways, no doubt Dr. Beeching, of whom much is expected and who, of all the chairmen of the three nationalised boards, will repudiate the doctrine the most swiftly, believing as he does in private enterprise, is presumed to put himself in exactly the same framework of political philosophy as the Prime Minister himself. Those things are abso-

lutely absurd and as long as the Government go on with government by exhortation, they will make a nonsense of our economy. The Government must depart from it.
The other day, the Electricity Council got away from it because it had the money to pay. Otherwise, it would have had to come before Parliament and the Minister might have denied it the money and might in that way have been able to make it observe the rules, although I do not see much sign of that with the coal industry which is to be given the money out of which it may pay wage increases. The Government have passed the point of no return with the Electricity Council. The Council has the money to pay and intends to pay the new wage rates, and now we are faced with the situation that the Government cannot by moral suasion prevent the railways and the coal industry from following.
I do not know whether what my right hon. Friend said that he said to Lord Robens will be observed. Lord Robens may take this £50 million and pay the wages increase out of it. There is nothing to prevent him from doing that, except the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: Mr. Willis rose—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The first Amendment would prevent it and the second would also prevent it.

Mr. Willis: Only if the increase were greater than any increase in productivity.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: No. The Amendment says only if the increases were related to production could they be given without a sanction. That sanction would be that some of the money would have to pass back to the Treasury, so that the Board's coffers would be empty.

Mr. Warbey: Has there not been an increase in productivity, so that there would be no return?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not know where that increase in productivity has come from.

Mr. Warbey: The miners

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: There are all sorts of rules which should be applied.

Mr. J. T. Price: If the noble Lord says what he means, we shall understand.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I have already pointed out that the Amendment is a peg on which to hang a major political argument and that it is the only peg which would pass the Table. Do not let us waste time debating the meaning of individual words.
I heard with astonishment from the Minister that the Coal Board was unable to borrow from the banks. Is not this a revelation? If he is to speak later, perhaps my right hon. Friend will dwell on that. It is appalling that a great industry cannot go to the banks and get accommodation. Are we to suppose that the financial institutions of the City of London, the great banks, will not give accommodation to a vast organisation employing hundreds of thousands of persons? That seems to he fantastic. The Board must have power to go to the banks and borrow for its running day-to-day expenses, its cash requirements and other things. If it wants, say, £5 million, £10 million, or £15 million to tide it over its current difficulties, are we to understand that it cannot do that? I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us. If it is true that the Board cannot go to the banks, the coal industry is in a more absurd suspense situation than can be imagined for a vast industry.
How else can the coal industry get out of its difficulties? My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster will not agree that prices should be allowed to rise. That is one of the ways by which Parliament could be saved this annual indignity of having to vote these vast sums. If coal could be sold at higher prices, there could be an internal recoupment of the money and we should not be faced with pouring out the taxpayers' money year by year to save the industry from bankruptcy. It is contended that if prices were higher, the industry would become uncompetitive and that oil would be used in increasing quantities and that greater demands would be made to my right hon. Friend to allow coal to be imported from the United States. So there is a stopper at the price end of this argument.
The only other valve to safety which seems to present itself is to lower costs,

We have these annual wage increases and a policy of over-full employment which are calculated year by year to increase the costs of the industry and we have to pass these vast capital programmes. I was astonished to hear the speech of an hon. Member opposite, a miner, when the other day he said that he had been talking to his friends in the Scottish mining industry who had told him that Glen Ochil Rothes and Bowhill were projects which his friends had never thought likely to produce a profit or to redound to the credit of the Coal Board.
It is fantastic to think that after ten years of Conservative Government we have another groundnuts situation in the coal industry. What are my right hon. Friend and the Cabinet doing about that situation? That this grandiose "Plan for Coal" should have been accepted and that people connected with the mining industry, not only hon. Members opposite but others elsewhere, could begin to say that these fantastic projects were never likely to produce a dividend or profit or any basis for interest is a situation about which the Cabinet ought to do something.
If prices are fixed and if costs are relentlessly rising, there is no safety valve except the annual vote year by year of taxpayers' money. How long is the taxpayer to put up with it? There is a handful of hon. Members on this side of the Committee who year by year have been parading the indecent behaviour of the Government and occasionally have been able to go into the Lobby to show our detestation of this behaviour. Behind it all there is a desire that an efficient and well conducted coal industry should prevail, and that it should produce coal at steadily diminishing prices and that it should produce gradually increasing wages for those employed in it.
But we see nothing of the kind taking place. Is it because nationalisation is a failure in itself? Is it because of the lack of internal competition in the industry? My right hon. Friend says that he is thinking about these matters, but he and his predecessors have had ten years' experience. From 1946 to 1951 they had five years' experience of the work of the industry and since then the Conservative Party has been in office for another ten years. At least two Ministers of Fuel ago we should have had a


plan for the reorganisation of the coal industry, not a plan for the recapitalisation of the industry on these grandiose lines, but something to render this vast industry competitive. Had that been done, my right hon. Friend would now be able to come to Parliament and say that the industry was ready.
I should like to use this occasion to force upon the Government a crash programme of reorganisation. I should like to oppose the Bill tonight by carrying both the Amendments into the Division Lobby, if my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster, who is responsible for them, wishes to do that. I should like the Government to be defeated on this issue and I should like the fact that they are not to get their £50 million to force them into an immediate crash programme for the reorganisation of the coal industry.
We cannot go on as we have been doing year after year stomaching this situation. It is a weak-kneed way in which the Treasury and the Ministry of Power come to us, knowing that Parliament on the whole is prepared to sacrifice the interests of the taxpayer in this absurd situation. I am very distressed to think that my right hon. Friend—for whom I have the very highest regard; he is a man of the utmost integrity—is allowing himself to be drawn along in this situation from day to day without showing the volition and purpose of which I know he is capable.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Finch: It is evident from the debate on these Amendments, and, indeed, from the statement by the right hon. Gentleman, that the miners are faced not with a pay pause but a pay freeze, and that if they produce more it will have no effect from the Government's point of view on any wage claim that they make.
This is a very serious situation, not only for the mining industry but for industrial workers generally. What hon. Members opposite have said throughout the years has been, "If the industrial workers deliver more goods, they will receive a fair share of the results of that increased productivity." It has been the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Budget days—"Increase productivity and you will be able to increase wages." That has been the

theme on every occasion when economic matters have been debated in the House.
But today we are told that if there is increased productivity no recompense is to be given to the miners suffering from pneumoconiosis who work in the bowels of the earth at seams 2 ft. 6 in. or 3 ft. high. Day by day the miners are exhorted to increase their production. But it will not result in any increase in wages.
What has been the position in the mining industry during the past four years? Average wages have risen by 6 per cent. and productivity has gone up by 16 per cent. Not many industries can show such an increase. Yet this is the industry which today is being attacked by hon. Members opposite. The men in this industry have delivered the goods through their hard work. They have responded to the call of the country in the present circumstances by increasing productivity by 16 per cent. in four years, while wages have gone up by only 6 per cent.
Can a miner be expected to do better than that? What more do hon. Members opposite want him to do? I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Box) is not at the moment in the Chamber. I listened to his speech during the debate on coal last week. He said that near Christmas the miners were working harder, that there was a bigger output near Christmas, and that Christmas was an incentive. There was an inference that the miners are not doing their duty throughout the year. What does the hon. Member expect? Of course a miner may work a little harder to get a few extra shillings before Christmas. May the miner never relax for a few minutes? The attitude adopted by certain hon. Members opposite is that, in spite of all the difficulties, there must be no relaxation by the miners.
The miners have delivered the goods. It may be argued that production is better in one district than another. That is true. It may be that certain districts have older pits. There are other factors. In the anthracite area in West Wales the pits are mere holes in the ground. Conditions vary. It may be that the figures from the Midlands are better, but we should look at the coalfields generally. I can tell hon. Members opposite that


the miners have done their duty by the nation.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has said, and as I have previously said, when the demand for coal was high prices were kept stable. The mining industry was treated not as a commercial concern in that respect but as a social service and it could not increase the price of coal. Therefore, one could argue that the mining industry helps to stabilise prices.
One would have thought that if coal was such an important factor and in those years the industry stabilised the prices, there would have been no inflation and that other prices would not rise. But prices as a whole—although not coal prices—did rise as a result of the Government's policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) has said, costs went up in the mining industry, but that was not due to the miners or to miners' wages.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman how he will measure the wage pause or wage freeze. He must have some yardstick. Is it simply a blind statement—"On no account is there to be an increase in wages, irrespective of increased productivity." I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I am amazed at that. It will cause consternation among our industrial workers. What is more, it will discourage increased production. It will discourage the men, for they will say "It does not matter what we do, because it will not result in any increase in wages." This will result in a very serious position in the industry. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain to us exactly what he means.
Subsidies have been mentioned. The coal owners were subsidised years before nationalisation, and subsidised out of the Exchequer. But up to now the mining industry has not cost the tax-payers a penny. Private industry costs the taxpayer something—agriculture, shipping, steel and textiles; they are taking money out of the public purse. It may be said that that is necessary in the circumstances, and that may be so, but they are taking it and are a drag on the economy in that respect. The miners have never been a drag on the economy. They have battled on in their own way without the slightest

assistance from the Government. Having regard to the importation of American coal and the cost of mining subsidies and so on, the right hon. Gentleman might very well have come to the House of Commons and said: "I will give some assistance to the industry in order to tide it over the grievous position in which it finds itself owing to rising costs."
All that I and my hon. Friends can do in this debate is to vote for the Bill and against the Amendments. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to tell us clearly what he means when he says that he is going to advise or talk to Lord Robens and that it will not be a "direction". All these are vague terms. We are told that it is not "direction" but "advice." Presumably, he will say to Lord Robens—"As a matter of advice—never mind what the miners do, never mind increased productivity—wages cannot go up." That is going against past arguments of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. As I have said, we are faced with, not a wage pause, but a wage freeze, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will retract to some extent from what he has already said in this respect.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am not rising at this late hour to attack the miners. That has not been the purpose of my hon. Friend's this afternoon. What we have been criticising has been the policy of the Government and the National Coal Board.
I would not support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has said today, nor some of the ways in which he said it—I am not such a skilled Parliamentarian as he is. Nor am I going to submit twenty questions to my right hon. Friends. However, I have had to sit in the House for nearly five years voting more and more money for the nationalised concerns, and today we are being asked to give a further £50 million—

Mr. Willis: To "lend".

Mr. Cooke: —to provide—if hon. Members prefer that word—a further £50 million to be poured down the bottomless pit of nationalised coal.
My noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinching-brooke) said that government by


exhortation was no good. We are not asking for that. We are merely suggesting that instead of £50 million, £25 million should be provided, and that that should be a fair discipline to the Board to mend its ways and reorganise itself as soon as possible to see whether it cannot stop this steady drain on our finances which has gone on for so long.

Mr. Willis: Apparently the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) has not sat through agricultural debates and listened to the House voting each year £250 million to an industry, without any opposition from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), or the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), even when it has been generally acknowledged by the Minister that money has been wasted in respect of certain of those grants. None of the hon. Gentlemen opposite has ever come along in anger to denounce what the noble Lord called the indecency of it.
As I understand it, the first Amendment is to reduce the amount to be granted to the Board to compel it to undertake what the noble Lord called a crash programme of reorganisation. What does he mean by that? Does he mean that mining villages in Scotland, in Durham, and in Wales, have to be made derelict? Is that what he wants? That is what he is asking for. Does he want to see the poverty which we saw in many of these villages before the war, where many a miner had no furniture in his home apart from a table, a chair, and a bed in which the family took turns to sleep? Is that what the noble Lord wants so that the Board can cut out uneconomic units and show a profit? That is what the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Kidderminster have been advocating.

Mr. Nabarro: Nothing of the sort.

Mr. Willis: I admit that the language is a bit more euphemistic. The noble Lord does not call it a rationalisation leading to unemployment, but a crash programme of reorganisation. It is a fine sounding phrase, which either means something or nothing. I do not know what it means, but I assume that it means that this is what must happen to the coal industry, and I for one would not stand for that for a moment.
The noble Lord referred to the indecency of the Board coming here year after year asking for money. My hon. Friends have pointed out ad nauseam that this industry has saved the country vast sums of money. It has served a valuable social function in recent years. It has had to undertake social tasks which it should never have undertaken if it was to be run as an efficient undertaking. It has also served economic purposes by subsidising other industries. It has had to bear the cost of imported coal. It has had to do a hundred and one things which ought to have been paid for by the Government. Yet, when it comes along and says, "We have done all this. We should now like to borrow money to get on with our programme", it is considered to be indecent.
Why should it be indecent for the Board to ask for money? I never hear hon. Gentlemen opposite using language of this sort about private industry when it asks for money. I have never heard hon. Gentlemen tell farmers that they are indecent. Rather the opposite. We are always told what a fine group of men they are, and what an excellent job they are doing for the nation by producing the food we need and easing our balance of payments position.
7.15 p.m.
Surely that argument applies to the miners. I do not think that there is anything indecent about an industry, which has been compelled to undertake burdens which it ought not to have undertaken, saying that it would like to borrow money. The trouble about the nationalised industries is that we still accept the Tory standards by which to judge them. We judge their usefulness to the nation and their efficiency in terms of profit. It was Sir Stafford Cripps who pointed out many years ago that profit is the test of private enterprise, and that it should never be the sole test of a public industry, because we expect from a nationalised industry a different code of conduct from that which we expect from private enterprise. The trouble is that we tend to forget this, and to judge this industry in purely private enterprise terms of profit. The hon. Member for Kidderminster puts forward this argument every time the subject is debated.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman has evidently neglected to observe that the Tory Party fought the General Elections of 1951, 1955 and 1959 on conducting the affairs of the nationalised industries on a commercial basis and not as a social welfare club. The reason for my quarrel today with my right hon. Friend is that he is not conforming to those election pledges which I gave to my constituents at each of those three General Elections.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman has confirmed what I was saying. The trouble is that we apply these tests, but when we judge like that we do not act like that. We make speeches about it in the House. The hon. Gentleman must remember that the Board has not been operating as a private firm would operate. As has been pointed out several times, it has had to undertake burdens which should never have been placed on it, but in carrying out its tasks it has served the national interest just as much as it does when it produces coal.
As has been pointed out, the second Amendment makes nonsense, and it has now been admitted that it was tabled merely for the purpose of a debate on the pay pause.

Mr. Nabarro: A vehicle.

Mr. Willis: A peg on which to hang a debate on the pay pause, and part of today's debate has been on that topic. Once again, I am rather entertained by the fact that the Tories have suddenly discovered the great truth that increases in incomes should not exceed the rate of productivity, but they apply this only to the workers. I do not mind an income freeze, but let us start with the landlords, the house owners, the company directors, the shareholders, and the gentlemen operating on the London Stock Exchange. I am sure that if the hon. Gentlemen started there he would find it much simpler to get agreement with the trade unions concerned in this matter. It is because the pay pause is not an endeavour to limit incomes nationally that the trade union movement objects to it.
This great truth that the Tory Party has suddenly discovered was enunciated a long time ago by Sir Stafford Cripps. But he did not say, "I am going to freeze wages, and even if you increase

your productivity you will get no more wages." That is what the right hon. Gentleman has told the miners today.

Mr. Wood: Mr. Wood indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: Oh, yes. When the hon. Member for Kidderminster interrupted the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and the Minister explained what he meant more clearly, the hon. Member for Kidderminster, with his customary acumen, observed, "This is a pay freeze," and rubbed his hands with delight.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member's quotation from my intervention is correct. I interpreted my right hon. Friend's statement as a pay freeze. But I did not rub my hands; I hit them together and then I said, "The Arctic".

Mr. Willis: Whether or not the hon. Member rubbed his hands he was certainly delighted that it was a pay freeze. He certainly did not object to the policy. If we are honest with ourselves today we shall recognise that the Amendment was put down simply and solely for the purpose of allowing the Minister to stand up to the miners and to make a statement that would put the Government in a strong and determined light.
The hon. Member was displeased over the increase that was obtained in the electricity industry.

Mr. Nabarro: I was not displeased.

Mr. Willis: The purpose of the Amendment was to give the Minister an opportunity to state in public, in the House of Commons, emphatically what he wants to do and what he would like the coal industry to do—and what he wants it to do is to accept a pay freeze.
This is something new. I have heard hon. Members recently talking about Sir Stafford Cripps doing this, but he never did it. What he said was correct, namely, that incomes should be no greater than increases in productivity. That was not a very profound truth to have discovered, even though the Tory Party seems to be highly delighted at having had sufficient intelligence to discover it now. What we are getting today is quite different, and it is to apply not only to the coal industry, although that is what we are now discussing, but to


other industries. That is why the situation is so serious. How does the Minister expect a miner to put his back into his work and get the best he can out of it if the Government tell him, "Even if you increase productivity you will not get increased wages"? I have many miners in my constituency.

Mr. Nabarro: So have I.

Mr. Willis: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that they will not be very enthusiastic when they are told that there will be no reward for increased productivity. But they are just as fond of their country and as willing to work for it as anybody else—in fact, they are more willing to work for it than most hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Nabarro: Come, come.

Mr. Willis: The Minister has made a serious statement, and has confronted the miners with a serious situation. I cannot help thinking that it will cause untold difficulty in the industry. In putting down the Amendment, hon. Members opposite have made the job of Lord Robens and the Coal Board infinitely more difficult. That will be the outcome. Hundreds of thousands of men all over the country are involved—

Mr. Nabarro: Mr. Nabarro indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Member for Kidderminster shakes his head, but at one time he seemed to think that if the Surtax payers did not get more they could not be expected to work harder to increase exports, but apparently the miner is not to get any increase at all for working harder for exactly the same purpose. That is the philosophy of the hon. Member. But the miners are not so foolish as he seems to think. Many of them who have had a life full of bitter and tragic experiences are not so foolish as to accept one thing for themselves and something else for somebody else. It is quite wrong to ask them to do so. If the hon. Member and his hon. Friends really had the national interest at heart they would have refrained from putting their names to the Amendment.

Mr. T. Fraser: We have had a very wide-ranging debate on the two Amendments. Hon. Members opposite have

frequently made clear the fact that they are very concerned about the position of the coal mining industry. I hope they appreciate that hon. Members who sit on this side of the Committee are also very concerned about the industry. They have told us how concerned they are about the deficit that has been accumulated by the Coal Board. I hope that they do not think that we are happy about it. We are also concerned.
The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) became quite worked up and demanded to know whether the Coal Board would be administered as a commercial enterprise. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Board, over the years, has been encouraged to operate as a social or as a commercial enterprise. We have had too much double talk about the position of the industry. We have heard moans from hon. Members opposite this afternoon about this annual event, when we discuss "yet another hand-out to a nationalised industry," but virtually the only industries which are not invited to accept hand-outs are the nationalised industries. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said that in their election propaganda over the last ten years the Tories have been saying that the Coal Board should operate as a commercial enterprise. They have been guilty of deliberately misleading the people.

Mr. Nabarro: I have not.

Mr. Fraser: Oh, yes—the hon. Member has.

Mr. Nabarro: Oh, no.

Mr. Fraser: Oh, yes. Hon. Members opposite have been very much in favour of the price of coal being controlled by the Government since 1951. The hon. Member for Dorset, South did not know why the Coal Board should not have gone to the money market and obtained its money in the ordinary way. It did not do so for obvious reasons. It did not know what income it would be able to get over the years, or what prices it would be able to get. For the first ten years of nationalisation the consumers, including all the industrial consumers, were getting coal from £1 to £2 per ton cheaper than the price being paid by their continental competitors—and it


was the Government who kept down the price of coal. It is estimated that if the Government had allowed the Board to get the continental market price of coal it would have accumulated £2,000 million.
The other day the Parliamentary Secretary suggested that it would have been immoral for the Coal Board to have done this. Let us agree that the Board would not be expected—a nationalised undertaking would not be expected—to follow the practices of private enterprise—

7.30 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: It would show more morality.

Mr. Fraser: Of course we think that it would show more morality. Is it not the fact that the Coal Board has this deficit because the earning capacity of the Board was restricted by the Government over the years? This is surely true. When hon. Gentlemen opposite say that they want to see the Board carrying on its business on the normal competitive commercial basis, how on earth can they at the same time justify the Board being asked to bear the loss of £70 million on imported coal, which it did not want but which the industrial consumers required, and the Government had to negotiate to get from abroad and for which it instructed the Board to be responsible?
Was not the Board required during this period to perform a social purpose? Was not it asked to render a service to the whole of society? Of course it was. Let us have no more double talk about this. I hope that the Minister will come clean with us and tell us whether he now expects, and has always expected, the National Coal Board to carry through its business on normal commercial lines. If this is so, I hope that the Minister will tell us when he proposes to put the finances of the Board in decent order by requiring the taxpayers now to pay the bill for all those social purposes which have been served by the Board over the years and which have caused it to accumulate what appears to be a very unhealthy deficit.
I do not think there is any getting away from this, at least not if hon. Members opposite are willing to face the facts of the situation. But they are not

They seem quite unconcerned about the effect of their conduct not only on the Board but on the men of different political persuasions who play a part in this public enterprise. I should have thought that there was—

Mr. Nabarro: Two-thirds of them vote Tory now.

Mr. Fraser: Two-thirds is just two-thirds, it is not three-thirds. Presumably the other one-third do not vote Tory. It may be that some of them vote Labour. But in any case, I should have thought that when hon. Gentlemen opposite attack the Coal Board in the way in which they have done, pretending as they have done that the Board all the while has been free to conduct its business on normal commercial lines, they were making it a little more difficult to keep men of real quality in the service of the Board. In any case, much that has been said in this debate will be construed by the ordinary working miners as an attack on them.

Mr. Nabarro: Never.

Mr. Fraser: I am much closer to the miners and the miners' £10 a week than I am to the directors of the National Coal Board. I happen to know them. I happen to live among them. For a great many years of my life I have worked among them. Many of the speeches made this evening have been attacks on the wages of the miners. The only inference to be drawn from those speeches is the miners are getting too much for doing too little.

Mr. Skeet: The hon. Gentleman is talking about increases.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman says we are dealing with increases in wages. Over the years hon. Gentlemen opposite have been dealing with increases in wages, but they have never thought that increases for the miners were justified.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been saying that the Board should pay. I think that the Government should face the responsibility for the cost of the social services performed by the Board. Were the Government to do that, it would not be necessary to raise the price of coal. I am not in favour of the price of coal going up. Hon. Members opposite do not want the price of coal to go


up, but they are against the wages of miners going up. The Board has to put its house in order, but hon. Members opposite are not yet telling us how the Board is to do that or whether they are in favour of the Government asking the taxpayer to meet, say, the losses on imported coal—a simple thing like that. Does the hon. Member for Kidderminster tell me that he is in favour of the Board meeting the cost?

Mr. Nabarro: All I want to say to the hon. Member is that he has misquoted me. I did not say that the price of coal must not go up. I said that the economic consequences of the Government's policy of raising the price of coal would inevitably be to hasten further switching over to oil and thereby the Board would sell less coal and would go deeper into the red. I did not say that the price of coal must not go up. I merely observed what would happen if it did go up.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman is splitting hairs—

Mr. Nabarro: I am not.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the most important question which I put to him. Does he think that the Board, out of its receipts from coal, should meet the cost of this social service which it has rendered to the whole community? Should this burden be carried by the Board, a burden which is not carried by the Board's competitor, the oil industry?

Mr. Nabarro: Having regard to the conditions of the Statute of 1946—which was framed by the party opposite and passed and lauded by the party opposite—yes, of course, the Coal Board should bear it. Because the party to which the hon. Gentleman belongs wrote into that Statute a statutory responsibility that the Coal Board should supply, on a monopoly basis, the whole of the demand for coal in Great Britain. On that, it should bear the loss on imported coal.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman is now talking absolute nonsense. He says that because a Statute made a certain provision in 1947, at no time should we ask that that Statute should be altered. But he is asking that a Bill now before Parliament should be altered. All I am suggesting is that the Bill might have been altered in a different direction.

Mr. Nabarro: Ah, that is different.

Mr. Fraser: Of course it is different. The hon. Gentleman and his friends in the Institute of Directors must know that they have derived a very considerable—

Mr. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) a member of the Institute of Directors?

Mr. Skeet: No.

Mr. Nabarro: There you are.

Mr. Fraser: The answer is in this book—

Mr. Nabarro: I am, but my hon. Friend is not.

Mr. Fraser: I was referring to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nabarro: Let us vote.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Member for Kidderminster has had his say and now he is saying, "Let us vote." He has heard his own voice and now he says. "Let us vote." All that he was concerned about in moving the Amendment was that he should hear his own voice and talk in this Committee with his 20 irrelevant questions on the topic of this Bill.
The coal industry has been asked to carry a burden which has never been asked of any private industry. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee think that the finances of the Board ought to be put in order. That can be done only by the taxpayer being asked to bear the burden imposed on the Board by this Government and by all Governments since 1946. I said that the other day, and I say it again.
I cannot understand hon. Members opposite who think that it was right to require the Board to incur losses by selling coal at less than the cost of production. I cannot understand hon. Members opposite who think that it was right to require the Board to incur losses by importing coal to supply industry's needs. I cannot understand hon. Members opposite who say that it is right to require the Board to pay compensation for subsidence caused by the extraction of coal by the private enterprise industry before nationalisation. It would be even more reasonable to ask the oil industry to bear the cost of Suez because the whole operation was aimed


at protecting the oil interests. Hon. Members opposite have had their fun once again.

Mr. Nabarro: It is no fun.

Mr. Fraser: They have attacked the coal industry. They have attacked the miners. They have pretended that they want to see the House of Commons put in the position of negotiating miners' wages.

Mr. Nabarro: No.

Mr. Fraser: If the Minister were to be responsible and if the second Amendment were carried, as Lord Robens said recently, he would require to tell the National Union of Mineworkers what the instructions to him were and the union would then have to negotiate with Minister. If the Minister were to be in the position of negotiating, the negotiations would ultimately come on to the Floor of the House of Commons. There is a need for more accountability for public enterprise industries on the Floor of the House of Commons, but I do not think that Parliament is competent to negotiate the wages of workers in any one of these industries.

Mr. Willis: If it were, Heaven help the workers under a Tory Government.

Mr. Fraser: All wage negotiations must be left to people outside the House. They must be left to trade unions and employers, whoever they are for the time being. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) said, in the last four years there has been an increase in wages of about 6 per cent. In the same period the increase in output per manshift has been 16 per cent. In seeking to placate his implacable hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster the Minister went too far today. He went very much farther than he went on earlier occasions. What he said today seemed to come perilously near to giving a direction to the Board. In seeking to show how unworkable the Second Amendment was, the Minister said that the pay pause would require to be observed and that, even where there were productivity increases or, to quote the words of the second Amendment, "increases in productive efficiency", the sanctity of the pay pause

would be observed and no wages increase would be granted.
I thought that the Minister went too far today. On Second Reading I thought that he was leaving the Coal Board to conduct the negotiations with the union appreciating that the Chairman of the Board was aware of the policy of pay pause, of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is presumably the author. In winding up on Second Reading the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the full and free discussions which the union would have with the Board. I hope the discussions will be full, frank and free, as they have a right to be. I hope that the Minister will assure us that nothing he said this afternoon will impinge upon the freedom of negotiation which there must be in the mining industry, as in all other public industries, in the matter of wages.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Wood: I think that all hon. Members will agree that a number of the points we have been discussing in the last few hours have been repetitions of many of the points covered on Second Reading, to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary replied. I will do my best to reply to the important points which were not dealt with then. I will certainly try to deal with the matter which has occupied a great deal of attention today, namely the pay pause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) asked whether any of this money would be used for servicing the debt, to add to the interest payments of the Board. It is clear that the total deficit at the end of this year will have an interest content, and to that extent therefore the money needed to bridge the gap, which I have described before, between the Board's internal funds and the total accumulated deficit, will naturally contain a portion representing the Board's interest payment.
My noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) seemed surprised and very shocked by my statement that the Board was unable to borrow from the banks. The explanation is not very complicated. The fact is that the Board is a regular


customer not of the banks but of me. It is the Minister who makes advances for the day-to-day needs of the Board. Therefore, I do not think that it is surprising, particularly in the stringent credit circumstances of the present day, that the Board cannot gain an accommodation from the banks. Therefore, an accommodation from the banks is no answer to the Board's present problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) had a point on what he called the non sequitur of my argument about the gap between the £60 million internal funds and the £90 million odd accumulated deficit at the end of the year. I do not yet understand what the non sequitur was. I explained that there would be that gap, towards which part of this £50 million at the end of 1961 would be directed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) asked whether the industry should be a social service or run on commercial lines. My answer to that is to point to the Statute, which plainly puts the industry in the position of being a commercial enterprise with social obligations. It has been apparent from this afternoon's speeches that many hon. Members will agree that the Board has certain social obligations.
I do not think that we shall achieve a very constructive move forward by arguing about the burdens of the past. I am sorry to say that many coal debates of the last year or two, and perhaps even earlier, have centred on the burdens of the past. I do not think that this will be very relevant to our attempts in the future, which I hope will be attempts together, to make the industry efficient. What we are determined to do is to make the industry viable in its present condition. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley complained that the Bill did nothing towards it. This is exactly the position which I have explained on several occasions, both to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) and to the House of Commons. These are not fundamental proposals. These are proposals designed to hold the position until the Chairman of the Board and I can agree proposals which we can put before the House of Commons to make the industry permanently viable and profitable.

Mr. Hirst: I appreciate what my right hon. Friend has been saying. My point on the figures which he said he did not understand was this. The mere fact that the Board has a balance sheet deficit of £90 million but only £60 million of resources, which I assume are cash resources, does not necessarily mean that it needs so much money at so early a time.

Mr. Wood: It means, I can assure my hon. Friend, that the money which it must have if it is to continue in business is something more than £30 million at the end of the year. That is the proportion of the £50 million in the Bill which the Board will need at the end of 1961.

Mr. Hirst: What has happened to the £60 million?

Mr. Wood: They are the internal funds already in the possession of the Board. They are not affected by the Bill and that is why the Bill is drawn in this way.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill) spoke about the co-ordination of the coal industry with other fuel industries. That has been a frequent topic in our debates and I have often explained that ample arrangements have been made for co-ordination, but I agree that this depends on the meaning one places on that word. I have often explained that if by coordination people mean dictation of the kind of fuel each consumer should use, then that is not the kind of co-ordination for which we should aim. Nor is it co-ordination if it is in the sense of fixing certain shares of the fuel market, which would be necessary, if we insisted on consumers using a certain type of fuel. Co-ordination should be broadly to bring industries along and try to satisfy the particular needs of consumers which have changed through the years.
Most of our discussion has centred on the second Amendment, which was designed to try to maintain the pay pause. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South pointed out that he realised its possible inconsistencies and inadequacies but said that he was anxious to support its being placed on the Order Paper in order to serve as a peg on which the debate could take place.
I must make it clear, particularly in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that I have said nothing new whatever this afternoon. I have merely said that a pay pause should be a pause in pay. I should not have thought that that was any very new doctrine to suggest to the Committee. It has been perfectly evident since the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement last July that he was anxious that there should be for the present—and earlier this afternoon I emphasised the words "for the time being"—no increases in incomes. The Chancellor made it perfectly clear in July—and later in debates—that the Government intended to set an example of this pay pause in the sector in which they have responsibility. That is all we have done and that is all I have said we should do.
I merely suggested that the Amendments would not serve the purposes of the pay pause, because the Government were anxious that there should not be, for the time being, any increases in money incomes, whether or not they were directly related to productivity. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) put words into my mouth to suggest that I had stated that increased productivity would bring no reward. That is not what I said.
If, in fact, productivity in the coal mining industry increases, then quite clearly in the Government's view, and no doubt in the view of the National Coal Board, the case for an increase, when the period of the pay pause was over, would be very much stronger than it would without an increase in productivity.

Mr. Willis: Meanwhile, no matter how much the coal industry might increase its productivity the Minister has just said that there will be no increases in wages.

Mr. Wood: As I have said, the Government's policy since 25th July has been that during the period of the pay pause—

Mr. Willis: We do not know how long that is.

Mr. Wood: No, we do not; we shall have to wait and see—there should be no increases in money incomes, and the Government have tried to set an example in the sector in which they are wholly responsible.
There has been a difference of opinion this afternoon among hon. Members, and the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) about where the responsibility for these matters should lie. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easing-tong (Mr. Shinwell) seemed to make it clear that it should remain where it is at present; with the National Coal Board. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) suggested that direct responsibility should rest with the House of Commons. I ask the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale seriously to consider just where that would take us, because if, as he suggested, we are to assume direct responsibility for wages in the coal mining industry, we are automatically assuming responsibility for over a half of the Coal Board's expenditure.
Of course, we could not stop there. We could not stop at wages and we should continue by taking over the whole administration of the coal industry—the Minister and Parliament—and we could not stop even there; we should be making ourselves largely, if not entirely, responsible for the whole administration of the nationalised industries.
The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock suggested that I was guilty of being ungentlemanly, I think—

Miss Lee: Power without responsibility.

Mr. Wood: That seems to place before us the whole dilemma in which we are. It seems to ignore the rather delicate relationship that must exist between the Minister, on the one hand, and the chairmen of the nationalised industries, on the other. I do not believe that I have been in any way inconsistent in what I have said. I have not added to what I said the other day, except to define the pay pause, which every one knew anyway.
I would remind the Committee of what I said earlier in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hamilton made these remarks at the end of the Second Reading debate:
The Minister"—


That is myself—
went on in the course of his speech to tell us that he appreciated that there was an application for a wages increase made by the National Union of Mineworkers to the National Coal Board and that he had communicated to Lord Robens the Government's pay pause policy. I think it was very proper that the Minister should do that, and I do not think that any of us would quarrel with anything that he said in this regard this afternoon."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 546.]
In my view I have not added or subtracted anything I said on that occasion, which the hon. Member for Hamilton said was "… very proper." I fully appreciate the motives which have compelled some of my hon. Friends to add their support to the second Amendment. The first Amendment, however, seems to be more questionable than the second. It would destroy the whole purpose of the Bill, which, I remind hon. Members, obtained an unopposed Second Reading last week. As I say, I appreciate the motive which led them to support the second Amendment. The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) made a proposition which would win a great deal of support among many hon. Members, when he suggested that he thought it would be a very dangerous thing if wages went ahead of productivity. He pointed out the need, of which we are all conscious, for a long-term policy after the pause ended. Those are matters which are in the minds of us all and about which most hon. Members would agree—privately if not publicly—that the need for some conformity between wages and productivity should continue to be kept in mind if we are to avoid the difficulties which we are now trying to put right.

The hon. Member for Dorset, South, apart from pointing out the shortcomings of the second Amendment, asked why I was unwilling to accept the spirit of it. In my opinion an attempt by myself, as the Minister, to place on the Chairman of the National Coal Board a statutory restriction of this kind, or any kind like it, would be bound to have the same effect in the conduct of the wage negotiations as if I had actually given him directions on what to do. It would be bound to transfer the responsibility for the wage negotiations from the Board to the Minister and that, I pointed out earlier, would have the most undesirable consequences.

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale suggested, I think, that my right hon. and learned Friend and I do not care what happens to this industry. The hon. Member does a great disservice—as do all such suggestions—to the industry. I have hoped and waited in the last two years for hon. Members, in a constructive spirit, to make suggestions which will really redound to the future prosperity of the industry. I feel strongly about its prosperity and I want it to be on a sound and permanent footing so that we may remove most of these rather sterile arguments which at present divide us. I want us to move on to a time when the whole industry can go forward and earn profits and be not only a service to the nation but of great benefit and prosperity to all who work in it.

Question put, That "fifty" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 206, Noes 6.

Division No. 16.]
AYES
[8.1 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Critchley, Julian


Aitken, W. T.
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Cronin, John


Allason, James
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver


Atkins, Humphrey
Bryan, Paul
Crowder, F. P.


Barlow, Sir John
Buck, Antony
Currie, G. B. H.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Dance, James


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Callaghan, James
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Biffen, John
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Deer, George


Bingham, R. M.
Channon, H. P. G.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Chataway, Christopher
Duncan, Sir James


Black, Sir Cyril
Chichester-Clark, R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.


Blackburn, F.
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Bossom, Clive
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Elliott, R.W.(Nwestle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Cleaver, Leonard
Emery, Peter


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Cliffe, Michael
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Box, Donald
Cole, Norman
Finch, Harold


Boyle, Sir Edward
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Finlay, Graeme


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Corfield, F. V.
Fitch, Alan


Brooman-White, R.
Coulson, J. M.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)




Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lindsay, Martin
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Seymour, Leslie


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Sharples, Richard


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)
Longbottom, Charles
Shaw, M.


Gilmour, Sir John
Loughlin, Charles
Shepherd, William


Goodhart, Philip
Loveys, Walter H.
Short, Edward


Goodhew, Victor
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Gourlay, Harry
McAdden, Stephen
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gower, Raymond
McCann, John
Small, William


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Green, Alan
McLaren, Martin
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Greenwood, Anthony
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Gresham Cooke, R.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Spriggs, Leslie


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Maddan, Martin
Stodart, J. A.


Gunter, Ray
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Manuel, A. c.
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Taylor, F. (M'ch'ter &amp; Moss Side)


Hannan, William
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Teeling, William


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mawby, Ray
Temple, John M.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mills, Stratton
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hastings, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hay, John
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hayman, F. H.
Noble, Michael
Turner, Colin


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Oswald, Thomas
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Holland, Philip
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Walder, David


Hollingworth, John
Peel, John
Wall, Patrick


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Pitman, Sir James
Warbey, William


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Pitt, Miss Edith
Ward, Dame Irene


Hoy, James H.
Popplewell, Ernest
Webster, David


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pott, Percivall
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Whitelaw, William


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pym, Francis
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


James, David
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ramsden, James
Winterbottom, R. E.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rawlinson, Peter
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Redhead, E. C.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Woodnutt, Mark


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Rees, Hugh
Woollam, John


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Renton, David
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Lawson, George
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Roots, William



Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Ross, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Russell, Ronald
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


Lilley, F. J. P.
St. Clair, M.
Mr. Gordon Campbell.




NOES


Cooke, Robert
Hirst, Geoffrey
TELLERS for THE NOES


du Cann, Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Mr. Nabarro and


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Viscount Hinchingbrooke.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Warbey: It would not be proper for us to part with the Clause without having a statement from the Minister about the terms of repayment of the advances which are being made under the Bill, and also of the rates of interest which will be charged on those advances.
The Government are curiously coy about the loans which they make to the National Coal Board and about the interest rates which they charge on them. For example, I have been endeavouring to find out what loans have been made

to the Coal Board during the past eleven months and what rates of interest have been charged. I have been unable to obtain that information, and I hope that before we have finished this evening we shall at least have from the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister a statement of the conditions under which loans will be made under this Bill.
In passing this Bill, we shall not only be giving financial assistance to the Coal Board but shall also be imposing upon it a burden of extremely high interest rates. On Second Reading, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
It was the Act passed by the Government of hon. Gentlemen opposite which put the


interest burden on this industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 563.]
It did not. It is true that the Act passed by the Labour Government made it possible to put an interest burden on the loans made to the National Coal Board, but it did not impose the burden which exists at the present time. The burden at present is the result of the policy of a Tory Government in successively imposing increased rates of interest on the loans which they made under successive coal industry Bills.
As I pointed out on Second Reading, the first loan made by the Labour Government under the National Coal Board's borrowing powers—a loan of £20 million—was made at a rate of interest of 2½ per cent. The latest loans made to the Coal Board in 1960 were made at 6⅛ per cent., nearly two and a half times as much, and that has had an enormous effect on the finances of the Board. I have calculated that if one takes the outstanding advances to the Coal Board since 1st January, 1947, that is to say, excluding the original advance made in respect of the assets vested in the Board on vesting day, the total amount of £621·4 million was outstanding on 31st December last. The interest payable on that amount totalled no less than £29 million. If the interest rate on that proportion of the Coal Board's indebtedness had been at only 2½ per cent. throughout, the interest would have been reduced by £14·9 million. In other words, it would have been reduced by approximately half the amount which the Coal Board has had to pay on these loans. If this had taken place, the Coal Board today would not have had a deficit on its current account, but would have a surplus.
8.15 p.m.
What the Government are doing under their present interest policy is to impose further burdens upon the Coal Board, and to make it more and more difficult in the future for it to make a surplus on its current account. In his Second Reading speech, the Parliamentary Secretary delighted us with one of those pungent statements of the classical economic doctrines of Adam Smith in which he delights. He said:
… it would be wrong to make it too easy to obtain money on too easy terms. If money is to be of real value, and the advancing of

that money is to be appreciated, it must bear its proper charge, and that is what has happened."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 563.]
It is rather comical in the twentieth century to hear the hon. Gentleman talking about money having a value over and above its exchange value and talking about it bearing the proper charge. It is time that we came up to date and stopped burdening our public investments with out of date charges which have no relation to the real cost of investment and production.
The right hon. Gentleman and his friends ought to take a leaf out of the book of the Soviet Union and other Communist countries in this respect. They have long ago given up this foolish idea that public investment in national industries ought to be burdened with the payment of interest rates to moneylenders. The calculations of the cost of capital investment should be related to the real cost in terms of the labour and materials involved in the making of that investment. If one does that, one not only has a truer picture of the amount of public investment which the country can afford but also a truer picture and a truer representation of the real division of the profits of industry between different classes of the community. What the Government are doing by their high interest rates is to impose a burden on public investment in order to give a handout to the moneylenders. It is as simple as that.
Surely, when the Government are interested in getting the co-operation of the workers in raising national productivity and in improving the country's economic position, they should have some regard to the natural reactions of the workers who are told, as the Minister told them this afternoon, that they cannot have even one penny of pay increase, even if they have earned it by increased productivity, but that, at the same time, the industry in which they work has to continue to pay a toll to the people who invest their capital or, rather, invest other people's capital which they have borrowed.
I find it shocking that the Minister says that to the miners and at the same time says that the moneylenders of the country can have their increased rates of interest, the land and property speculators can have their capital gains and


the Surtax payers can have their £85 million. But the miners and the other productive workers cannot even have a penny increase. If, instead of ordering the miners not to make any demands for increases at present, the Minister ordered the moneylenders during the pay pause not to take a penny of interest on the money which they lend to the Government, and which the Government lend to the National Coal Board, he would get some co-operation from the miners in trying to get the country out of the economic slough into which the Government have pushed it. Unless they are prepared to do that, the Government will not get the response which they hope to get from the miners or from any other workers.
I think that my plea will fall on deaf ears. It would be a surprising contribution towards what the Minister sought this afternoon if the Parliamentary Secretary announced that loans under the Bill would be free or at a nominal rate of interest.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): Indeed, it would be a very surprising development if I made any such statement as the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) wishes to hear. I will not follow him along the charming road which he described, when he spoke of the conditions in Soviet Russia, nor will I add anything to the way in which my right hon. Friend dealt with all the issues raised on the pay pause and the treatment of the mining industry. I will confine myself to the simple issue which the hon. Member raised at the beginning of his speech.
It is true that in my closing speech I said that the 1946 Act passed by the Socialist Government gave power to levy an interest rate, and that this interest rate has always been the appropriate Exchequer rate at the time of the advance. It is true that the burdens have risen during the years and that because they have risen it is more difficult for the Coal Board to make ends meet, but these are normal methods of borrowing money, whether in a free enterprise or in a nationalised enterprise. The rate of interest prevailing at the time money is borrowed is the rate to be paid for it. As the hon. Member well

knows, the rate paid by the N.C.B. is lower than that at which free enterprise can obtain its money on the open market.

Mr. Warbey: Is the hon. Member seriously suggesting that the Government of the day can do nothing about determining the prevailing rates of interest?

Mr. George: Indeed, the Government can do quite a lot and have done so from time to time. They have influenced the prevailing rates of interest. But to give this industry its capital at a rate less than that at which it could normally be obtained would be to give the industry a concealed subsidy, and that is not the Government's intention now, nor can I see it being the Government's intention in the future. This industry would wish, for its own dignity, to pay the proper rate for money which it borrows. If it is in difficulties they must be dealt with in some other way.
The Government will not let the industry down. A battle is being fought with the aid of the Government to raise productivity and to get this industry on to a basis of permanent viability. There is nothing but good will on the part of the Government towards the industry. I assure the hon. Member that if he hopes to see a viable industry standing on its own two feet, that also is exactly what we on this side of the Committee desire to attain.

Mr. William Hamilton: I will not detain the Committee long, but I want to make one or two comments on the Parliamentary Secretary's speech. We fundamentally disagree on the basis on which our society is run. Given the kind of society which we have, of course we shall have to pay for the money we borrow. But we believe that there can be differential rates of interest which can be determined by the Government. For instance, we have maintained that local authorities should have a lower rate of interest for their house building and other social services than that which obtains in the other money market. Did not the Government, when they introduced the Bill giving a grant to the Cunard Company, fix the interest for that loan at a lower rate than the then


prevailing market rate? Thus, there is no doubt that it can be done.
The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary said that they want to make the industry viable. Let me give an example which makes me question that proposition. About £20 million has been sunk in the Rothes pit in my constituency; about £8 million has gone on the shaft-sinking, but the total expenditure is nearer £20 million. The future of this pit is in jeopardy, and after the reappraisal which the hon. Member talked about on Second Reading, the pit may be closed altogether. I hope that that does not happen, but it is possible that it will, in which case that capital must be repaid plus the interest. The interest will still be chargeable although the pit will be closed.
In the Bowhill Colliery the capital sunk in redevelopment is about £5 million. If that pit goes the way we fear Rothes may go, the interest and capital on that, too, will have to be repaid by the Scottish Division of the Coal Board. This is a weird and wonderful way of making an industry viable by insisting that this interest should be paid. The hon. Member should keep in touch with what other Departments in the Government are doing. Has he heard of the Transport Bill? In the financial situation in the Transport Bill, the Government are writing off many of the obligations of the Transport Commission. All that we are saying is that where the industry has undertaken financial commitments for social reasons, these ought to be accepted by the Government. Where, as in the case of Rothes, there are geological reasons which could not be known to the Board but which nevertheless impose burdens on the future of the industry and, therefore, make it less viable than the Minister seems to want, these liabilities should be taken over by the Government.
If the Government are serious about making the Scottish industry viable, I would even suggest having a differentiation between the treatment of the Scottish industry and the English industry, because the Scottish industry is in a much worse plight than the English industry. This would do a good deal to restore the

confidence of the Scottish miners and people in the future of their industry.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AVIATION (EUROCONTROL) BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress 24th November.]

[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 2. —(STATUS AND PRIVILEGES OF EUROCONTROL.)

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, to leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
(a) by any person acting through legal process;
(b) by a constable acting in the execution of a warrant.
On 24th November, when I was moving the Amendment and was cut short by the Adjournment, I had explained briefly the purpose of the Amendment as being that without it certain essential steps in civil litigation in which the Organisation set up by the Bill might be involved would be impossible. Those steps in litigation are the normal step whereby one litigant obliges another person to produce the relevant documents in the other's possession, and secondly, the power of one litigant to oblige a witness to produce relevant documents. I explained that the Amendment would restore those rights to litigants in cases in which the organisation is involved.
The organisation created by the Bill is a form of corporate body which is unknown to our law. There are several international organisations known to our law, but this is a legal body that can sue or be sued in our courts and is yet given certain immunities in the course of those proceedings. By subsection (3) of Clause 2, the organisation is granted an inviolability of its official archives, which, as I read


the subsection, include any of its documents. Otherwise, the proviso to the subsection would not be necessary.
The proviso is that the subsection
shall not preclude access to any premises, or the inspection of any document,—
(a) by a constable or other person acting in the execution of a warrant or other legal process".
I would have no objection if the words "other legal process" stood on their own, but where they stand in the subsection after the word "warrant" one must interpret them as being something of the same kind as a warrant. An order for discovery of documents in the course of litigation has nothing whatever to do with a warrant. A subpoena to a witness to produce documents has nothing whatever to do with a warrant.
It may be said that we know this kind of immunity in the courts already. It may be said, for example, that the Crown has some immunity for process of this sort under the Crown Proceedings Act. I will return to that point presently.
It may be said that foreign diplomats and envoys are exempt in some way from the process in our courts. Indeed, they are exempt from action in the courts unless they submit to it; but if they submit to that action they submit to all the normal process of litigation and are subject to the ordinary procedure.
It may be said that there are other international organisations recognised in our law which have privileges in our courts. Indeed, there are. Those other international organisations are exempt from being sued in our courts. This new organisation, however, is not given that exemption. By subsection (2) of the Clause, it is given only part of the exemption which is given to other international organisations and it is allowed to sue or be sued in the courts here.
It may be said that we have to abide by the Convention on which the Bill is founded. Let me turn for a moment to the Convention and, in particular, to page 39. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 25 make the organisation fully liable both in contract and in tort. That is carried out in Clause 2 and subsection (1) of this Bill. The full intention and implications of this are clearly seen in Clause 7 by which the organisation can be sued even upon those acts which

occur outside the jurisdiction of the courts here. So the Convention recognises in full the accountability of the organisation in our courts.
Now as to the procedure for enforcing that liability. Again I refer to the Convention and particularly Article 26. Paragraph 3 of Article 26 seems to permit exactly what I require by my Amendment. If the Committee will bear with me I will read out what it says:
The provisions of this Article shall not prejudice access to the installations and archives of the Organisation by the competent authorities of the State in which the Organisation has its seat and of other countries in which those installations and archives may be situated, in order to enable judicial inquiries to be carried out and to ensure the execution of judicial decisions in their respective territories.
What I am asking for by my Amendment is that the Bill should recognise Paragraph 3 of Article 26 of the Convention when it says that we should enable judicial inquiries to be carried out.
Let me take an example. Suppose that I am suing the organisation for negligence in its direction of an aircraft which has been involved in an accident. As another example, it might be an action on contract for services or goods supplied to the organisation. One can multiply the sort of circumstances in which the organisation might become involved as defendant in proceedings. In normal proceedings one would be entitled to require the organisation to produce any relevant documents. That is an essential part of litigation in our courts, but if this Bill stands as it is that cannot be done; and yet, in my submission, it is not contrary to the Convention. Paragraph 3 of Article 26 specifically authorises that.
Let me take another example. One can imagine two litigants entirely unconnected with the organisation, in an action between two private persons, and that the vital point in that action is the movement of some aircraft or messages transmitted to that aircraft. Those litigants could not exercise the normal rights of litigants in our courts to subpoena, say, an employee of the organisation to produce documents to prove what messages were given to the aircraft.
My hon. Friend will be familiar with the Crown privilege in these matters, but


that is given by the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947. If a Minister certifies that the production of any Government documents would be injurious to the public interest, then the Crown is relieved from producing them, but that is very different from the proposition put into this Bill relating to this European organisation. The Crown privilege, after all, applies to our Crown and is exercised on the advice of our Ministers responsible to the House. It is not the decision of some foreign body. Furthermore, Ministers, if they are claiming privilege of this sort, must claim privilege by reference to a specific document. In this case the organisation is privileged for all its documents.
Lastly, the Crown privilege point is governed by the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947. I should like to quote Section 28 of that Act as an example of the sort of privilege which is granted in our courts and which might well have been granted to this organisation if the Bill had been appropriately drafted. The Section reads:
(a) in any civil proceedings in the High Court or a county court to which the Crown is a party, the Crown may be required by the court to make discovery of documents and produce documents for inspection; and
(b) in any such proceedings as aforesaid, the Crown may be required by the court to answer interrogatories:
Provided that this section shall be without prejudice to any rule of law which authorises or requires the withholding of any document or the refusal to answer any question on the ground that the disclosure of the document or the answering of the question would be injurious to the public interest.
Under the Bill the organisation is put in a better position as a litigant in our courts than is the Crown.
If my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary fears that through some phoney civil action an order of the court may be obtained for the discovery of documents which would disclose the movement of military aircraft to some foreign Power, possibly he would be prepared to advise the Committee to accept the Amendment and himself at a later stage add some proviso which would enable Ministers to say that the production of documents is injurious to the public interest, and so put this organisation at least on the same footing as the Crown. As things stand, I am not at all happy at giving a foreign body a legal entity and then giving it immunity from process in our courts.
It would give rise to this sort of anomaly. The organisation could force an opponent in litigation to produce documents and yet refuse to do so itself. Even foreign diplomats and envoys are not in that position as plaintiffs. What I really fear is that this would be a precedent for further international bodies which may arise out of our greater co-operation with Europe.
For example. on Second Reading, my hon. Friend said:
… this is the first occasion on which this country has joined a purely European institution as a founder member.
In referring to the organisation, he said:
This is, in a certain measure, a supranational institution. It will have powers of a kind that we have not conferred on a similar body before.… It is a good example of the right way to move into European partnership on practical grounds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 858–63.]
I question whether it is the right way, to create a body which has all the advantages but not all the duties when it comes to judicial proceedings. Are other countries so interpreting Article 26 (3) of the Convention or is this just our own interpretation of it, which I submit is contrary to both the meaning and spirit of that Article? This is not an Amendment out of the woolly head of some stray back bench Member. This is a matter which has given great concern to the Law Society, which is anxious to preserve the rights of litigants when new bodies such as this are created with rights to sue and be sued in our courts.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: I should first like to thank the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for the very able and lucid way in which he moved this slightly complex Amendment. On this side of the Committee we feel disposed to give him some qualified support. I should like to reinforce some of his arguments by giving the background to the present situation.
Prior to 1948 it was not possible to sue a Ministry, unless a Statute specifically provided otherwise, except on matter of contract. This caused a lot of hardship. As a result, the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, was introduced by the Labour Government. That Act puts the Ministries in exactly the same position as a private person of full age


and capacity, with certain exceptions such as the Post Office and the Armed Forces. Thus it is possible, as a result of this big advance in jurisprudence, to sue Ministers.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, under Section 28 of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, there is specific power to obtain an order from the discovery of documents—in other words, in the early stages of the action to force the Ministry to produce documents which might be of value to the person taking action for damages. There is also, under the Act, the right to subpoena a witness from the Ministry and also to make sure that he brings with him such special documents as are helpful to the plaintiff.
The present situation is, first, that an aggrieved person can sue the Ministry of Aviation and at an early stage can obtain an order from the court to make the Ministry produce documents or records which would be available to his case, and, secondly, when the trial actually occurs, the aggrieved person, who is the plaintiff, can subpoena a member of the Ministry and also obtain an order that he should produce relevant documents or records when he attends court.
In the same way, if an aggrieved person were suing some other organisation, although he could not obtain an order for discovery of documents at an early stage, he could, however, still use the full power of subpoena to obtain someone from the Ministry in court for evidence and to obtain necessary documents and records at the time. But, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Minister retains certain important rights to waive the plaintiff's rights over the documents in certain cases, in that he can give a certificate to the court saying that it is contrary to the public interest for these documents to be produced. Indeed, as far as I know, the Minister's power goes a little wider in that he can decline to produce a document to the court if it is against the public interest to produce that class of documents.
The effect of Clause 2 is to provide that Eurocontrol can be sued by any British subject. The Ministry of Aviation hands to Eurocontrol more or less complete control of the air traffic in upper air space and possibly, to some

extent, in lower air space, according to whether some other countries enter into an arrangement regarding lower air space. While handing over this control and while permitting the ordinary British subject to sue Eurocontrol, Clause 2 (3) precludes the aggrieved person from obtaining access to the records or documents which would help his case.
This is a very big change in the rights of the subject. Obviously, if one is suing Eurocontrol on matters dealing with what happens in upper air space, it will be vital to obtain the records. Hardly anyone can know what is going on in upper air space, and in any action involving upper air space the most important factor in evidence will be the records of the various tracking instruments which indicate what aircraft are doing in upper air space.
The Bill will completely deprive the prospective litigant of his ability to make good his case. It says that someone who is aggrieved and who has an action for damages against Eurocontrol can fight Eurocontrol just the same as he can fight the Ministry of Aviation, but that he must fight Eurocontrol with one arm tied behind his back. That is probably a fair assessment of the legal position. The same consideration applies when suing some other organisation, for instance, one air company suing another, or a private person suing an air company. Whoever is the plaintiff will obviously be grievously handicapped in not being able to produce documents or records referring to what has happened in upper air space and, in accordance with the Convention, possibly some parts of lower air space. It is clear that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Crosby restores these very important rights of the subject to anyone who wishes to take legal action against Eurocontrol.
I shall attempt a small essay into clairvoyance and try to visualise what the Parliamentary Secretary will say as an objection to the Amendment. As the hon. Member for Crosby has pointed out, it may be suggested that there are security grounds for objecting to the Amendment. It is obviously possible for a fictitious civil claim to be made by the agent of some potentially hostile country and, as a result, for records to be obtained of the movement of military aircraft. That objection is not nearly as


valid as it sounds. First, there is the time factor. I think that the hon. Member for Crosby, who has immense legal experience, will probably agree that it takes at least two months to obtain an order for discovery of documents.

Mr. Graham Page: Mr. Graham Page indicated assent.

Mr. Cronin: That is probably a figure which favours the Minister. Anyway, there has to be time for a statement of claim from the plaintiff and a defence from the defendant. It is rather difficult to visualise that movements of military aircraft could be of considerable consequence and that valuable information would be given to a potentially hostile country if those movements were known as much as two months later.
Leaving aside the question of the discovery of documents, the Bill as drafted would completely remove from the litigant the right to subpoena a person from the Ministry of Aviation and the appropriate documents. One can safely say that, if everybody moved with the maximum expedition, it would be at least six months before the case actually came to court. So, if one looks at it from the point of view of security, it is rather difficult to feel that there is a strong argument for rejecting the Amendment on the ground of security when the information that might be available to a potentially hostile country should come so very much later than the actual event if there was a fictitious civil claim for the purpose of obtaining such information.
I also suggest that even if this danger existed it would not be a very difficult matter for the military aircraft of the countries concerned to vary their movements a little in the course of their daily exercises. It is recognised to be an undesirable form of action from a military point of view constantly to use the same course, at the same times and using the same manœuvres. I should have thought that it would have been perfectly easy, therefore, for military aircraft to vary their movements and, to a large extent, to negative any useful information which could be obtained by a fictitious civil claim.
There is also the very important point that it would be perfectly possible to introduce some Amendment to the Bill which would enable Eurocontrol to

withhold records from legal process if objections were made by the Ministry concerned.
Consequently, my hon. Friends and I feel disposed to welcome the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Crosby. We do not feel that there are sufficient grounds for rejecting it.
I wish now to refer to some other points in connection with the Amendment. First, the Amendment does not give a right of access to documents or records; it merely prevents the right of access being precluded, as would be the case if the Bill were not amended.
Another very important factor is that there is a large and constant increase of air traffic, and it is very likely that there will be a number of accidents in future with a number of aggrieved persons who will wish to initiate action for damages against Eurocontrol or an airline or some other organisation affected by traffic movements in upper air space. We have a real duty to protect, as far as is possible, the rights of those people.
Like the hon. Member for Crosby, I have also been in touch with the Law Society. The Law Society is very anxious in no circumstances to be involved in anything to do with politics, and one may feel some sympathy with that attitude. Nevertheless, I understand that the Law Society feels some really grave disquiet about what will happen if the Bill goes through un-amended. It seems to me that the Parliamentary Secretary ought to take very careful note of disquiet expressed by such an authoritative organisation in English law.
Another important point is that, as the hon. Member for Crosby mentioned, the Bill will establish a very important precedent. This is the first occasion on which this country has entered into a European organisation as a founder-member. It may be that this country will become a member of other European organisations. At present hon. Members know the Government are in the process of active negotiations about entering the European Economic Community. I do not intend to refer to the merits or demerits of that proposal, but if we are negligent of the rights of the subject on the first occasion on which we enter a European organisation as a


founder member, one wonders what is likely to happen on future occasions. It seems that we are establishing a very important precedent, and we must be careful how we do it.
9.0 p.m.
I suggest that Clause 2 seems to open a very serious breach in the rights of the subject as regards the ability to take legal action about events in upper air space. I am sure that the Minister, with his great dialectical skill, will give us a helpful reply, but I warn him that we on this side of the Committee are disturbed by the present situation with regard to this Bill and that if he cannot give us some satisfactory explanation or assurance we will have to think seriously about dividing the Committee.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): I assure the Committee that I will take careful note of everything that has been said. I hope that I shall be able to give satisfactory assurances to the Committee, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for producing, out of the far from woolly head of a far from stray back bencher, an Amendment which, although I am unable to accept it, has nevertheless given the Committee the opportunity to consider this important question of the inviolability of the new Organisation.
I stress at the beginning that the extent of the inviolability and immunity of this organisation is very limited, and in the drafting of the Bill it has been our intention to make sure that nothing more is given away than is strictly necessary. For instance, out of the thirteen privileges which can be conferred on international organisations under the Schedule to the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950, only four are being conferred on Eurocontrol. Inviolability extends only to the installations and archives of the organisation, and "installations" are defined later in this Clause, again in a very restrictive phraseology. I will return to archives in a moment.
The organisation is being denied what is normally conceded to international organisations, and that is immunity from suit. I have here a list of about fifteen other international organisations which

enjoy immunity from suit, which is not being conferred on Eurocontrol. As my hon. Friend pointed out, one would expect, on the face of it, that if immunity from suit was not conferred, then a person who was entitled to sue the organisation would also be entitled to two further things, discovery of documents, and the right to serve a subpoena; otherwise the conduct of his case would be hampered.
But this argument is not exact, as I think my hon. Friend pointed out in showing that under the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, the Crown can be sued but it can claim privilege to withhold documents. The organisation is not, of course, the Crown, but its position is in one respect similar to that of the Crown under the Convention, and that is that Article 25 allows suit against it, whereas Article 26 confers a degree of inviolability. As the hon. Member has pointed out, it is an unusual organisation which, so far as I can say, has not hitherto been known to our law.
In this unusual situation—and it is bound to be unusual from the nature of our undertaking in signing the Convention—we have considered carefully with the Foreign Office and the Law Officers the exact extent of immunity which should be given to the organisation. We have been anxious neither to go beyond what is required nor to fall short of it. What is covered by "inviolability", in Article 26 of the Convention? It refers to installations and archives. The advice that I have been given is that archives, as referred to in Article 26, include—as we have already mentioned in an earlier stage of the Bill—not only documents but tape recordings, films and similar objects which are mentioned later in the Bill.
I am advised that these could not be considered inviolable under the terms of Article 26 if any litigant, including not only litigants in this country but, for instance, representatives of foreign airlines, and even airlines outside Eurocontrol countries altogether, could obtain discovery and serve a subpoena on the organisation.
Paragraph 3 of Article 26, which my hon. Friend read out, limits access in these circumstances to the competent authorities for purposes which are defined at the end of the sentence. We


believe that the phrase referring to competent authorities would not justify a Clause in the Bill enabling a litigant in a civil action to obtain discovery and to serve a subpoena.

Mr. Cronin: Will the hon. Member make clear, for the record, whether we are to understand that an order of the court for discovery of documents, or a subpoena, would not be considered to apply to the phrase "access by the competent authorities"? The suggestion seems to be that a court is not to be regarded as a competent authority of the State, under the terms of paragraph 3 of Article 26. Can the Minister clear the position up?

Mr. Woodhouse: We understand that under paragraph 3 the competent authorities refer to the authorities specified in the Bill as we have drafted it, and the insertion of the hon. Member's Amendment would extend that access beyond the range of the competent authorities as defined in Article 26.

Mr. Graham Page: Is my hon. Friend telling the Committee that a constable is a competent authority but that a High Court judge is not? That is what seems so peculiar to me.

Mr. Woodhouse: No, Sir. I cannot pronounce on the relative competence of constables and High Court judges. I can only assure my hon. Friend that the advice which we have received would limit the interpretation of the phrase "competent authorities" to those that we have inserted in the Bill as drafted.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: I am very interested in this point. The authorities at London Airport take a tape recording of the words passing between the control tower and the pilot of an incoming aircraft. Do I understand that it is the deliberate intention of the Government that any individual who may wish to sue the air line for negligence shall be deprived of access to that tape recording? Does it mean that the authorities referred to in the Bill are the only competent authorities who will have access to these tape recordings? It seems that an individual, through his solicitor or counsel, will be deprived of access to such documents.

Mr. Woodhouse: I hope to elucidate that a little later, but under the Convention the power to obtain access to documents of that kind, were they within the control of the Eurocontrol organisation would not automatically be conferred on anyone other than the competent authorities included in the Bill. But it would be within the power of the organisation of which we are an important and an integral member to waive the right to withhold such documents.

Mr. Howell: Surely this is a contrary to British practice in the past where the right of the individual is absolute. In this instance the individual would have no right, unless somebody else conferred that right on him by seeking to obtain the evidence which he or she absolutely needed. If there is a question of neglect; if an individual has received some injury; if, for example, he or she claims that the pilot made too steep a drop and therefore there was a bounce which was greater than it should have been, due to the negligence of the pilot; if someone wished to protect the pilot they could deny that right to the individual. Surely we should go by what was said by a Lord Chief Justice, that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done, and the Government should think carefully before taking away the rights of the individual.

Mr. Woodhouse: In a situation such as was described by the hon. Gentleman I see no reason whatever to suppose that the right of the organisation would not be waived for the purpose of such a case, and we, as a leading member of the organisation, with a heavy weight in the voting in the organisation would always use our influence to see that it was waived.
If I may pursue my argument further. I think it will become clear to the Committee why it is not possible to write into the Bill a right of access applicable to such cases. The point in my argument which I had reached was that the Amendment of my hon. Friend would extend the right of access to Eurocontrol archives beyond the terms of the Convention. He argued that the purpose of his Amendment was to bring the Bill into line with the Convention. My understanding is that that is incorrect;


that the Bill as drafted is in line with the Convention and that the Amendment would put the Bill in conflict with it.
That, of course, is not the end of the matter. The Committee may well ask why we should accept a Convention which limits litigation in this way. I explained when I spoke during the Second Reading of the Bill that certain shifts of sovereignty margins were involved. We gained certain rights over the organisation and the organisation gained certain rights over us. One of the rights which it gained under the Bill is the right which is implicit in the Convention at many points. It is the right to protect military security.
If hon. Members will look at the Preamble they will find reference to due regard being paid to the requirements of national defence. This recurs in Article 6, Paragraph 2 (a)
… having regard to the requirements of national defence …
and again in Article 2 of the Statute, I need not recite all the examples. The point is that the organisation is to be responsible for movement in the upper air space not only of civilian aircraft but also military aircraft of the member Powers operating under I.C.A.O. procedures. That is, broadly speaking, military transport aircraft, but it includes a number of others as well. In the lower air space it might be still more widely extended.
9.15 p.m.
Eurocontrol will have to work very closely with the Military air forces of this country, of our allies, and of other countries which may join Eurocontrol without being in the formal sense our allies. Much use will be made in operating Eurocontrol of military equipment, both in this country and in other member countries. Article 28 of the Convention provides for the use of national technical services already installed in different member countries. In our own case, the national technical services, which are already very elaborate, are in the process of becoming closely co-ordinated between military and civilian use.
The organisation is, therefore, bound to have cognisance of military information of a fairly extensive kind. I assure the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin)

that such information would certainly still be of value two months, six months or even longer after the date of the operations to which it referred. The Amendment, if it were written into the Bill, would give any party to the suit, whether or not the organisation were also a party to the suit, the right to secure from the organisation information on matters which might be prejudicial to our own national safety and also to the safety of others, including our allies.
I do not think it is right to say that the Bill would completely preclude access to the sort of information hon. Members have in mind.

Mr. Cronin: I am not going to press him on this, but can the Parliamentary Secretary give us an approximate idea of how valuable information about movements of military aircraft are likely to be to a potentially hostile power two months after the movements have taken place? It is rather difficult to visualise this.

Mr. Woodhouse: I do not think that it is possible to quantify these values exactly. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that any country which was considering joining the organisation would certainly consider its security liable to be prejudiced by the revelation of movements of military aircraft even quite a long time afterwards. I shall return to this point.
I assure the Committee that there wilt be no question of completely precluding access to documents legitimately needed in civil suits. Eurocontrol, like any other foreign or international organisation, could waive its immunity and should, we hope, readily do so in reasonable cases. The influence of Her Majesty's Government would always be used in the direction of ensuring that it did so in reasonable cases.
I turn lastly to the point which has been made once or twice about claiming Crown privilege in relation to documents which might prejudice security. There is no question that a Minister can claim Crown privilege by a certificate declaring that it is not in the public interest that a particular document should be disclosed. My hon. Friend put his finger on the spot, and in a sense on the weakness of his own case, when he said that this referred to Government documents. It is certain that such a certificate would be decisive in respect of


any document in the organisation's possession which originated with Her Majesty's Government. I believe that this has been tested in the courts and was finally settled in the House of Lords about twenty years ago. But it is not certain whether it would cover a document not originating from Her Majesty's Government but originating, for instance, from a foreign country which was a member of the Organisation or from an airline whether or not it was in the organisation. There would be very many such documents in the control of the organisation. I do not think that this point can be taken care of, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Loughborough suggested, by an Amendment to the Bill.
There has never been a case to determine whether Crown privilege extends to documents emanating from other Governments. If such a case arose it would have to be decided in the courts. It would probably have to be fought at great expense up to the House of Lords with an uncertain outcome, especially as the trend is towards restricting Crown privilege. Meanwhile, we should have discouraged friendly Governments from joining the organisation. One of our objects is to see if the organisation can be more widely extended in Europe, and we do not, of course, wish to discourage our allies and other friendly countries and put ourselves in conflict with the wording of the Convention.
I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby may see fit to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Cronin: In spite of the Parliamentary Secretary's assurances, we still feel considerable doubt as to the desirability of letting the Bill continue on its way unchanged. There seems to be no doubt that there may be some hardship to persons involved in accidents, possibly to children, widows and even to pilots. If a pilot is involved in an air crash possibly the only records which could clear him would be the records available in the archives of Eurocontrol.
At the same time we appreciate that there are certain difficulties. It may well be that the expression "competent authorities" in paragraph 3 of Article 26 may not necessarily be an expression

which would include a solicitor armed with an order for discovery or a solicitor armed with the subpoena. There may be some difficulty of interpretation here. The Government must be under some censure nevertheless for not having attempted to make this matter perfectly clear in the course of the negotiations.
Article 26 could easily have been drafted in such a way as to make the position clear beyond all doubt. There now seems to be a certain amount of ambiguity that may preclude acceptance of the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), although it is far from certain that it would. I am glad to have had the reassurance of the Parliamentary Secretary that the Ministry of Aviation will have considerable influence in the organisation on this matter. I believe that it has ten votes out of 37. I hope that it will use that influence to see that the right to withhold records is waived wherever possible and whenever it may cause hardship.
Another factor of considerable importance is that this Clause will have some further consideration in another place, where there will be some very formidable legal talent to carefully investigate the matter. It may even be that the Government may have second thoughts. Bearing those considerations in mind, although my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends and I feel considerable doubts and reservations about the position, I do not feel disposed to advise them to divide.

Mr. Page: I hope that my right hon. Friend will give the greatest consideration to the arguments which have been put forward in connection with the Amendment, especially since they have come from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I hope that I can rely perhaps on his finding a compromise between the arguments which he has put forward and those which hon. Members of the Committee have adduced, some compromise which can he introduced at a later stage. In that hope, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(PROVISION OF FUNDS AND FACILITIES FOR EUROCONTROL.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Cronin: We on this side of the Committee are anxious that progress should be as rapid as possible, but we cannot completely ignore the financial aspects of this very important Bill and I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary some questions.
It would be very helpful if he could give us some information about the contributions in respect of civil aircraft from States which are not members of Eurocontrol but which are actually using the facilities of Eurocontrol. If one looks at Article 23 of the Convention, it would appear that there is some doubt as to what extent non-participating countries' aircraft will have actually to pay for the use of the services concerned.
We should like some information on that because it seems that if Eurocontrol is to provide free or cheaper services to non-contracting States and if the countries which form part of Eurocontrol are to subsidise those services, it would obviously be more profitable for those other countries to stay outside Eurocontrol. We all hope that the baby Eurocontrol will grow into a large adult organisation, but if there are to be marked financial advantages for other countries in staying outside the baby's growth will be stunted and it will be a dwarf.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to be more specific about the actual total amount this country is likely to be obliged to pay in respect of Eurocontrol's expenses. If we turn to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum and the paragraph headed "Financial Effects of the Bill" we read:
Contributions under the Bill to the expenses of the Organisation will vary according to the provision of the Organisation's needs which is approved from time to time by its member states,
It also says:
and will also be affected by the working of these formulas.…
Later it says:
The likely level of United Kingdom contributions over the life of the Organisation cannot be forecast at this stage; but so far as the present state of planning permits even a tentative indication, they may if a year early in the full operation of Eurocontrol be of the order of £3 million capital and some £2 million recurrent expenditure".

It is rather disturbing to read that when the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill is of such a vague nature. The information we received on Second Reading was rather unsatisfactory in some ways. For instance, the Minister said:
The costs are not easy to estimate. The picture is continually changing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 844.]
If we turn to Articles 23 and 29 we find that our contribution is to depend upon the proportion which our gross national product makes to the gross national products of the other countries concerned. The statistics to be used are those of the O.E.E.C. and this will be indicated in thousands of millions of French New Francs according to the factor costs and current prices. There will be some difficulty to say least for an unskilled person to assess what will be the total cost involved.
On Second Reading the Parliamentary Secretary said that the United Kingdom would probably pay about a third of the whole, but we have no idea what the whole is likely to be. If we had some real confidence that the Ministry of Aviation would apply an eye to economy perhaps we would feel more comfortable about the situation. I thought it might be desirable to cast our minds back to see how the Ministry has fared in the past with regard to its estimates. It is rather difficult to find estimates used by the Ministry of Aviation, because the Ministry of Aviation is an organisation which has been formed from the Ministry of Supply and the previous Ministry of Civil Aviation.
9.30 p.m.
In the Second Report of the Public Accounts Committee for the Session 1959–60, which is the nearest I could get to it, in pages xxxi-xxxiv, one finds that a guided missile, the "Sea Slug", which is called Type A, was estimated to cost £1½ million, and the ultimate cost was £70 million. Similarly, the missile "Thunderbird" was estimated to cost £2½ million and eventually cost £40 million. The guided missile "Fire-streak" was estimated to cost £4 million and ultimately cost £33 million. We want to be fair to the hon. Gentleman. It may be suggested that guided missiles are in a class by themselves, in which


estimates are often difficult to achieve, but if one turns in the same document to page xxviii, one finds an estimate for the investigation and evaluation of navigational aids—

The Temporary Chairman (Dr. King): Order. I have listened to the hon. Member with interest, but there is no mention of guided missiles or "Thunderbirds" in the Clause we are discussing. By all means, a passing reference may be made to items which are outside the Clause, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will not go into detail on them.

Mr. Cronin: I entirely bow to your Ruling on this matter, Dr. King, but it seems to me that we might perhaps mention the estimate for the investigation and evaluation of navigational aids, because they are so much a part of this Bill, which deals with navigational matters. This will be the last figure I shall quote. The estimate was £86,500 and the final expenditure was about three-and-a-half times as much—£300,000.
We on this side of the Committee have no wish to emphasise unduly these matters from the past, but I should like to suggest that the past does not give us complete confidence in the Ministry of Aviation in regard to estimates for the future. Therefore, when we find ourselves faced with these rather vague references to what this Bill will ultimately cost this country, we do not feel completely at ease. I should like the hon. Gentleman to help us in this matter, and to give us a little more comfort about the total expenditure likely to be met by this country in the future.

Mr. Woodhouse: I think the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) in the last part of his speech advanced very good reasons for our exercising extreme caution in the estimates that we have put forward in the Preamble to the Bill. I have seldom seen estimates made more cautiously than those in the Financial Memorandum.
I am not able to make them more precise, but I should like to spend a moment, in the course of answering the hon. Gentleman's questions, in trying to explain why it would be impossible in

any circumstances to make them absolutely precise. In calculating these costs, especially for twenty years ahead, which is the duration of this Convention, there are a large number of major unforeseeable factors. For instance, there will be the introduction of new systems and equipment of which we at present know nothing. There will, we hope, be the accession of new members to the Organisation, which may tend to bring our share of the cost down. There will be, we hope, agreements with non-Member States, quite apart from the question of charging their aircraft for services used, and there is the uncertainty about the extent of the use of national facilities, which would be very important in our own case, because our existing facilities are so extensive already. There is the uncertain factor involved of the possible extension of the area covered by the Convention into the lower air space as well as the upper air space, and, above all, there is the very complicated nature of the formula for calculating costs.
I will not go into great detail about that formula except as far as is necessary to answer the hon. Member's specific questions. The method will be spread over a period of 20 years, in stages. In the first stage we merely make a token contribution; that is the stage we are in. In the second stage the calculation of costs will still be based on the gross national product of each individual country and our share, on present levels of gross national product, would be almost exactly one-third.
But it is when we go beyond that stage, after the next three years, that it becomes complicated. After that stage capital contributions continue to be based on gross national product, and gross national product is also the base on which will be calculated the cost of military traffic and the cost of nonmember civilian traffic. I will come back to that in a moment, because it concerns the hon. Member's first question. The costs for civil traffic of the member countries will be apportioned according to the scale of use by each country. Contributions are offset, of course, by services rendered by the national installations available in each country.
In the fourth stage, when the organisation has developed a tariff system of its own, which it has permission to do under the Convention but is not obliged to do, it will decide the tariff by a voting system of a weighted majority of an absolute majority of the members. I mention that because this is a type of voting in which we shall have a very heavy influence, and those tariffs will be applicable to the aircraft of nonmember States as well as member States.
It is impossible at this stage to predict what the tariffs will be, and it is therefore impossible to say exactly what the contributions of non-members will be. I can only say that the Government's weight will always be directed towards making the system pay for itself rather than be subsidised by the member States.
As the hon. Member said, the total amounts mentioned in the Memorandum are very rough approximations. They are based on consultations with the other members in the interim organisation, but inevitably these were consultations only on the general outline of the service. They relate only to a sample year, not to any one particular year, and the capital amount will vary, naturally, from year to year. This is merely a random slice. The recurrent contribution will vary according to the scale of the facilities provided.
In order to give the hon. Member comfort, in conclusion, there are two final points which I should like to make about our contribution. The first is that annual Estimates covering the immediately following year for our contributions to the organisation will be presented to Parliament by the Government—and can be debated. Secondly, air safety is very expensive and is a necessary requirement, and we cannot escape this kind of cost even by not joining the organisation. In fact, we might even find that our own air safety system cost us more if we were outside the Organisation than if we were in it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS.)

Mr. Woodhouse: I beg to move, in page 6, line 40, to leave out from "therewith" to "may" in line 4 on page 7 and to insert
regulations under section four of this Act may make provision—

(a) in the case of default in the payment of any charge payable by an operator under the regulations, for authorising the detention, pending payment, of the aircraft in respect of which the charge was incurred or of any other aircraft of which the person in default is the operator at the time when the detention begins;
(b) in the case of default in complying with any requirement imposed by the regulations on the operators of aircraft with respect to the production for inspection, or the furnishing of particulars, of any records, for authorising the detention, pending compliance, of any aircraft of which the person in default is the operator at the time when the detention begins;
and such regulations".
I apologise for imposing on the House such a seemingly elaborate Amendment at this stage. It is, in effect, an extremely small Amendment. The purpose of the Clause is to ensure that a defaulting operator is liable to have his aircraft detained until he has discharged his default, whether it is failing to pay money or failing to keep records. In the Clause as drafted, it appears that an operator whose aircraft was detained in this way could, by selling the aircraft or transferring it to another operator, who might be himself under another name—that is, unfortunately, the kind of thing which has happened in recent times—get away with it and obtain the release of his aircraft. The object of the Amendment is to close that final loophole.

Mr. Cronin: We on this side see no objection to the Amendment. It seems a desirable one. It would appear fortunate that there was delay in the passage of the Committee stage in that it enabled the Minister to have second thoughts. I am glad that he has taken advantage of the delay so felicitously.

Mr. Woodhouse: The second thoughts could have been had in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(SHORT TITLE, COMMENCE MENT AND EXTENT.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Will the, Minister explain exactly what subsection (2) means? It states:
This Act (except this section) shall come into operation on such date as the Minister may by order appoint and different dates may be appointed by order under this subsection for different purposes of this Act.
Does that mean that the Clause comes into operation right away, or does it mean that it does not come into operation at all? I do not understand the meaning of this kind of Clause. I do not remember having seen it in other Bills.

Mr. Woodhouse: It means that the Clause comes into operation as soon as the Bill becomes law, otherwise the Minister would not have power to bring the other Sections into operation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read the Third time.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Cronin: Mr. Cronin rose—

Mr. Willis: On a point of order. This procedure is rather strange. The Bill has been amended in Committee. It was reported to the House in a new form. It is now an amended Bill, but no opportunity is given for Amendments on Report. Is that not a rather strange procedure?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I think that is quite normal. Had there been Amendments to consider on Report, they would have been considered.

Mr. Willis: Further to that point of order. Amendments were made in Committee, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. That makes the Bill a different Bill. The Bill that comes to the House on Report is

not the same Bill that was before the House in Committee. I suggest, therefore, that nobody has had an opportunity of amending the Bill in the light of the fact that it is now a different Bill from the one which was considered earlier. That certainly does not seem to give Members of the House proper facilities for considering and amending the Bill, if necessary and if they so desire.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The procedure that was followed was the normal procedure. The hon. Member will have an opportunity of speaking now on Third Reading, if he so wishes.

Mr. Willis: But the Bill cannot be amended.

Mr. Cronin: I feel some obligation to be as brief as possible on Third Reading.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Willis: There is plenty of time.

Mr. Cronin: Yes, there is plenty of time, but one has to take into consideration that the proceedings in the next three days may well take us until very late the following morning. I am anxious that hon. Gentlemen should be able to reinforce themselves by as much sleep as possible tonight.
I was about to say that we on this side of the House welcome this Bill. It has the general approval of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and B.E.A. and also the British Airline Pilots' Association, and I think that it is generally welcomed in most civil aviation circles.
I think that the Bill will probably make some substantial contribution towards safety in the air. I not think that we can afford to be at all complacent about safety in the air. The situation is still very far from satisfactory. From 1958 to 1960 there were six collisions in the air with 191 fatalities. So an organisations such as the one to be set up under this Bill will obviously have a very beneficial effect.
The Bill will also be very valuable in that it will give a unique opportunity to our own electronics industry. It can be said, with confidence I think, that our aviation electronics industry is probably considerably in advance of that


of most other countries. This Bill will give an opportunity for our electronics industry to go ahead and achieve some really substantial advances in our exports. Finally, I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the very helpful, amiable and lucid way in which he has explained matters on this Bill. I hope that he will convey our thanks to the Minister in the same respect. I think that we must also express gratitude to those people who have negotiated this Convention and for a good deal of very hard and exacting work done behind the scenes in drafting the Bill. I should like to offer the Bill my good wishes, and I hope that it will have a satisfactory journey through the other place.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — FORTH AND CLYDE CANAL (EXTINGUISHMENT OF RIGHTS OF NAVIGATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

9.48 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to extinguish the rights of navigation on the Forth and Clyde Canal and to remove the obligation on the British Transport Commission to run it for this particular purpose. The Bill, I would emphasise, affects in no other way at all the Commission's duties or responsibilities in relation to the canal, and in particular it will continue as a source of water for industrial purposes. For a reason I shall explain a little later it is highly desirable that the right of navigation should cease on 1st January, 1963.
This canal cuts Scotland roughly in half along the line chosen by Antoninus Pius about nineteen centuries ago. Although his purpose was somewhat different, his wall and the canal have achieved very similar results, although the canal is perhaps rather more effective in impeding movement from south to north and north to south. Except by the ferry at Dunoon and across the

Queensferry Passage one cannot make a journey through Scotland without passing either over it or under it. Including Glasgow there are 40 bridges carrying traffic over the Canal, and five roads go under it. Many of these bridges are timber bascule bridges capable of carrying three tons to five tons only, and often they are awkward to approach. The bridges and approach roads are all, except in one or two cases, quite inadequate to meet modern needs.
After nearly 200 years of the canal's life, most of the bridges are just wearing out. Indeed, except for a bridge built a year or two ago at Twechar, the youngest of the modern swing bridges is already over 20 years old. I need only instance the Camelon and Bainsford bridges in Falkirk, the Castlecary bridge on the A.80 and the Dalmuir and Kilbowie road bridges in Clydebank for hon. Members to appreciate how the existing bridges hamper traffic movements on important routes. Among the timber bascule bridges, a striking one is the bridge at Blairdardie in Glasgow which can carry three tons only but which is the direct link to Glasgow for the 40,000 people who live in Drumchapel and Blairdardie.
Altogether there are no fewer than two dozen road bridges which highway authorities think should be replaced in the reasonably near future, but there is no likelihood of this being done except in the direst need while the cost of replacement is about £80,000 for an opening bridge for a single 24 ft. carriageway and twice as much for duals. Our road programme for the next five years will also involve two new trunk road crossings of the canal on the Denny and Falkirk bypasses, the former taking the place of the present Castlecary bridge. Their combined cost would be about £320,000 if lifting bridges are necessary. If not, about £20,000 would be adequate.
In all, the cost of new bridges and desirable replacements on the basis of new opening bridges amounts to about £2½ million. If the Canal is closed to navigation and culverts can take the place of bridges, up to 90 per cent. of this expenditure would be saved. I am not of course implying that as many as 24 bridges will immediately be replaced, though some would be, if the canal is


closed, but the saving would still be real if this process is spread over several years.
The figures which I have given show that there are very strong arguments for ending the navigation rights so as to enable highway authorities to get on with the economic replacement of inadequate bridges. If navigation continues, what I fear is not so much that local authorities will incur heavy expenditure on new swing bridges but that, faced with the cost, nothing will be done and the trouble spots will thus remain.
I should like to examine the present use made of the canal and then go on to discuss the interests which will be affected by closure to navigation. Very little freight is conveyed on the canal and none has been carried throughout its length for some time. Apart from the supply of water to industry, its principal use is by fishing boats, yachts and launches on passage and for mooring purposes. The figures give a good idea of the position and I will give them as averages for the last three years.
In the last three years an average of 210 fishing boat passages and 123 yacht and launch passages were made each year from sea to sea. The receipts from these passages averaged £1,050. Overall, the working costs have been £77,000 per year, the total receipts £40,000, the greater part of which is from industrial water, and the working deficit £37,000 per annum on average. It can be seen therefore that the British Transport Commission incurred quite a substantial loss on running the canal and it may be expected that this will be reduced if it is no longer required for navigation.
The principal navigational use is by fishing boats. At the beginning of last year, well before our decision that the Bowes Committee conclusion was right, the fishermen affected discussed the matter with my Department. They did not then bring forward any fresh arguments for keeping the canal open which materially added to those given to the Bowes Committee. The main argument is the dependence of the Forth fishing fleet on the canal for access to the western herring fisheries in summer and to the Clyde white fish grounds in winter.
We well realise that the closure of the canal to navigation will inconvenience the fishermen concerned, perhaps in parti-

cular those operating small boats. But, in the face of the vast sums of public expenditure involved in the bridge problem, we do not think that there is a convincing reason for keeping the canal open primarily for the benefit of the 60 or so fishing boats which use it.
The other main use is by yachts and launches on passage, and I have recently had the opportunity to discuss this with representatives of the Royal Yachting Association and the Inland Waterways Association. They urged, above all, that in the programme of bridge reconstruction sufficient headroom should be preserved for vessels to make the passage, if necessary with their masts unstepped. The headroom which we concluded would be necessary would be about 10 feet—too small, incidentally, to include fishing boats.
The deputation appreciated, too, that there could be no compromise on its request, since the construction of the first bridge at which this headroom was impossible would obviously close the canal to these vessels. I have already said that the cost of an opening bridge for a 24 foot road is about £80,000. The comparable cost for providing crossings by means of culverts or low bridges, according to the circumstances of each crossing, would probably be less than £10,000 a crossing.
It is very difficult to assess, without excessively detailed examination, what would be the cost of providing 10 foot headroom at all these places, but while the bridges themselves might not cost very much they would need extensive raising of adjoining public roads and acquisition of property. The cost to provide 6 feet headroom, which we first considered, might be of the order of £60,000 per bridge. To provide the full 10-foot headroom, or a higher clearance which would have helped fishing boats, by means of fixed bridges, would, in many cases, be almost impossible, and to allow vessels of this height free passage would mean that in the majority of cases opening bridges would have to be retained.
My conclusion, therefore, is that it is really impossible to meet the yachting interests in the way they suggest. I should stress that the Bowling Basins, at present used by a variety of craft, will continue to be available for mooring and other purposes and could be further developed.
I must explain why the Bill is urgent and why we want it to come into force on 1st January, 1963. The Denny bypass on the Glasgow-Stirling road is now under construction and should be completed in the summer of 1963. It will cross the canal near Castlecary, and if the crossing were to be made by means of a lifting bridge we should have to reach a decision to that effect early next year so that it could be built in time. This explains why I have brought the Bill forward now. Any later would have been too late to save the £160,000 which a lifting bridge would cost.
If, as I hope, the Bill commends itself to the House, and a crossing by means of a culvert becomes possible, with the resultant saving of about £150,000, physical closure of the canal can be deferred till the beginning of 1963 and still allow sufficient time before the road works are completed to enable the much simpler crossing to be built. But we must start on it not later than January, 1963.
I know that the House will share my genuine regret that the passage of time and the changing nature of our transport industry point inescapably to ending navigation on a waterway which has existed for nearly 200 years, but I am confident that hon. Members will agree that we can no longer avoid implementing the writing on the wall. The Bill does not abandon the canal, nor does it mean that the canal will have no future at all. The use of it for the supply of water is a great asset for industry near its course and I have already referred to possible developments at Bowling. But with the main step of extinguishing navigation behind us, all the local authorities concerned will be able to consider their interest in the canal's future and help the canal administration to give the canal—as redeveloped—a useful and economic future.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Many of us will be a little sad to have to approve the passage of this Bill. Not only do we think of the fishing vessels that use the canal but of the ever-increasing number of our fellow citizens who spend their leisure time on the waterways. That is very important, but we have also witnessed in other parts of the world such use of waterways for the conveyance of freight that it must concern us a little when—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Maclay.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Fraser: I was saying that it must concern us at a time when we are seeking to make economies in transport in Scotland that we should be removing from our transport system the most economical system there is. One wonders whether we have not been failing Scotland over the years by not seeking to make better use of this waterway for the conveyance of goods to and fro across Scotland.
Giving us figures of the different types of bridges, the Secretary of State made what appeared to be a very powerful case for his Bill, although many hon. Members on both sides of the House will have questions and suggestions to put. He said that in certain parts the canal would continue to fulfil a very useful purpose. The Schedule says:
The Main Canal, commencing by junctions with the Old Harbour, with Junction Dock and with Carron Dock (including the timber basins on each side of Earl's Road), all in the Burgh of Grangemouth in the County of Stirling and terminating in the parish of Old Kilpatrick in the County of Dunbarton at the foot of the two locks connecting the Canal with the River Clyde and with Bowling Harbour respectively …
It goes on to describe the Glasgow Arm.
The navigation rights are being extinguished throughout the whole length of the canal, which includes the timber basins of the east of Scotland and that part of the canal adjoining the Firth of Clyde of which considerable use is now being made by water craft. The Secretary of State made it clear that, although the navigation rights were being extinguished, the use of the canal by water craft would not be prohibited.
As there are navigation rights enjoyed by people who use the canal, I wonder whether the British Transport Commission undertakes works of maintenance at the canal's extremities which it will no longer be obliged to undertake when the Bill is enacted and, if so, whether we are likely to see a deterioration of the facilities available to industry at one end and industry plus pleasure craft at


the other. Will we make it more difficult for those who use the canal for those purposes to continue to use it, or to extend the use they are making of those two ends of the canal?
The Secretary of State knows that there has been considerable agitation in Scotland in recent years about the in-filling of canals which are no longer being used for the purposes for which they were originally constructed and which have become dangerous to the public. This is not the most dangerous canal in Scotland—I think that the Monkland Canal has claimed most victims—but I understand that this canal has claimed some victims, too. Will the canal, if it is no longer being made available for navigational purposes, be further neglected? Will it become a greater source of danger? If there is such a likelihood, we shall be all the more reluctant to pass the Bill. Is there a possibility that it will become a sort of neglected sewer, and what steps are being taken to ensure that it will not, because is it not the preservation of the navigational rights on the canal that puts an obligation on the British Transport Commission to carry out certain work at present for the better maintenance of the canal?
In describing some of the uses of the canal, the Secretary of State referred to it as a source of water supply for industry. I do not think the whole length of it is required for that purpose. However, it would seem that the canal is likely to be, by itself, a catchment for water, and that water will, therefore, continue to spill into it and find its way to industrial users, presumably at either end of the canal. But how much of the canal is required for this purpose?
If the canal is no longer to be used for navigational purposes, would it be possible to close a good length of it, and, if need be, fill it in? Might it not be used for roads? One does not normally decide the line of a road in accordance with the way a canal happened to be constructed 200 years ago, but is there a possible use for it in this connection?
In as much as some people have advocated the in-filling of dangerous canals and in as much as it is recognised that there is a continuing need for the water that runs in them for industrial purposes, can the Secretary of State tell

us what would be the cost of piping the water, thus removiing the danger, particularly to children, along the greater part of the canal which would appear not to be likely in future ever to be used by water craft?
As the Secretary of State told us about the disadvantage to be suffered by the sixty or so fishing vessels which at present use the canal to cross Scotland, can he tell us what will be the extent of it? Will the vessels have to go round the north of Scotland or through the Caledonian Canal? What time is likely to be added to their journey between the Firth of Forth and the Firth of Clyde if they have to go through the Caledonian Canal?
I do not find it possible to offer any vigorous criticism of the Bill on Second Reading, though there are a number of questions still to be answered before we pass the Bill and put it on the Statute Book. We should be irresponsible if we argued against the Bill irrespective of the cost of the provision of the bridges which has been mentioned, and we should not be discharging our duties if we did not seek to preserve the extremities of the two canals for the very useful purposes to which they are now being put.
More and more people are driving over crowded roads to the Firth of Forth and the Firth of Clyde, and I should have thought that as these canals offer a safe harbourage for vessels, we would not wish negligently to put through an Act of Parliament which would have the effect of discouraging the use of our waterways by pleasure craft.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I have often battled for canals, and, indeed, we have done a great deal to save many of our canals in England. I therefore ask for the indulgence of hon. Gentlemen opposite from the Northern Kingdom in speaking about a Scottish canal.

Mr. William Ross: Last week the hon. Gentleman said that we had no canals in Scotland. Now he wants to talk about one.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: The hon. Gentleman spoke to me about that after the debate. I told him that it was a slip of the tongue and for "any" read "many".
After that short digression, I am sorry to have to say that, feeling as I do about


these things, I feel obliged to support my right hon. Friend in the Second Reading of the Bill.
I have been thinking and worrying about this proposition which has been "on the go" for well over a year, and I have done my best with Scottish Members and other people to see that the case of the users of the canal was brought forward as fully as possible. I am rather disappointed at the efforts which the commercial users in Scotland, the fishermen, have made in impressing on all concerned the necessity for keeping their way open. Having looked at it carefully, and also at the question of the passing through of yachts, I have come to the conclusion that, great as this benefit is to these people, by far the greater benefit lies in doing what my right hon. Friend proposes to do.
It is unfortunate that this waterway runs across a route the like of which no other waterway in the United Kingdom crosses. There are these enormous numbers of important road crossings going from north to south in the narrowest part of Scotland. Something has to be done to improve these passages in the interests of the greatest number of people, and I think that that is what we have to bear in mind.
Unfortunately, this canal does not seem to have a great number of friends. There is not a Forth and Clyde Canal Society. I do not think anyone would say that it is a canal with great amenity value. I learnt with some surprise—and I think that it must be the only one in the United Kingdom or indeed in Europe where this is so—that there are no fishermen on this canal. That surprises me a great deal. I am sure that if fishermen had been involved we should have heard a great deal about it from them, although one might say that the closing of the navigation would not greatly affect their amenities.
Who uses this canal, and what are we going to lose? A curious thing is that the yachtsmen of the Forth do not seem to think much of the yachting waters of their brothers on the other side, and there is little passage of yachts from the Forth to the Clyde.

Mr. Maclay: They send them by road.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: They send them by road. I thought that some yachts might

be a little expensive to send by road, but perhaps that is not so in Scotland. The great trouble has arisen not from any area in Scotland but from the northeast coast of England. It is from the yachting clubs on the north-east coast that the greatest pressure has been brought to bear on the Royal Yachting Association to save this waterway.
If we consider the figures, and the number of people using the waterway, it is difficult to make out a strong case at the moment. The crux of the matter is, however, that the yachting clubs on the north-east coast of England are bound to be improved, and there is bound to be an enormous increase in yachting in the area. In future more and more people would use the waterway if it remained open. But under the Bill that possibility will not arise. It is, therefore, a good thing to realise that we may be doing away with something which might be of great value to many more people in the future than it is at the moment.
But having said that, if we go on to consider the cost involved we must agree that what the Minister wants to do is right. I thank him very much for meeting the chairman of the Inland Waterways Association, a distinguished member of the Council of the Royal Yachting Association and myself and discussing the matter in great detail with us. We were quite convinced that if he could have seen any way to save the canal for the benefit not only of yachtsmen but fishermen he would certainly have done so. He understood the problem very well. He is a yachtsman of no mean repute—or at least he was in the past when he had a little more time.
One or two other matters arise out of the speech of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser). I understand that my right hon. Friend intends that the Bowling Basin, at the Clyde end of the canal, shall be preserved for the benefit of yachtsmen and anybody else who wishes to use it, especially for laying up their boats in the winter. I further understand that a half-mile stretch of the canal beyond the Basin will be available for this purpose. This will be a valuable acquisition, because it is a very wide canal, and its value will increase as interest in this form of


recreation develops. It will be particularly advantageous, because two railway lines on either side of the canal at that point will add greatly to the security of that stretch.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give the assurances for which the hon. Member for Hamilton asked. I hope that the British Transport Commission and its successors—the Inland Waterways Authority—will be bound to keep the Basin going, with all the necessary works, in the shape of locks, and to see that the whole thing functions properly.
The hon. Member asked whether, since the canal was being closed to navigation in some parts, it would be a good idea to fill it in altogether. He further asked for some assurances on this point and an estimate of the cost. I do not think that my hon. Friend will be able to give such an estimate here and now, but experience has shown that it is a very expensive thing to do. I recollect the Corporation of Nottingham spending about £93,000, not many years ago, in closing a few miles of canal. Probably the best way of dealing with the matter is to see that the canal is properly fenced in areas where children are likely to be able to have access to it.

Mr. T. Fraser: I did not say so in my speech, but in Scotland we have a great many pit heaps which we could well do without. Were they put into the canal, they would leave areas of Scotland in a little more attractive condition.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: That may well be. I will support the hon. Gentleman in anything he wishes to do to try to make attractive any eyesores which there may be in Scotland, although I do not think that in his beautiful country there are many places which need to be made more attractive.
I support this Bill. I hope that hon. Members will not think because I so often ask for canals to remain open that I am one of the "lunatic fringe". I think this is a case where a canal should be closed in the interests of the majority of the people and the roads in the area improved, as is so badly needed.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: The hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) agreed

with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) that there was a certain amount of reluctance over the closing of this canal. I support that general feeling because people have a certain sentimental attachment to it. As was said by my hon. Friend its route could be used as a means of transport as it runs from the north-west to the south-east.
The local authorities in my constituency have had the problem of this canal in mind for very much longer than the period of a year, which was the period referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I think that the Minister probably knows already that in my area the local authorities welcome this Bill as a proper solution to a problem which has concerned them for a long time.
This is a simple Bill which removes the obligation to maintain the canal as a means of navigation. I wonder whether it is not too simple and whether one or two things might well have been mentioned in it. I take it that when the right hon. Gentleman, explaining the occasion for bringing in this Bill, said that it was needed urgently, he was also—although he did not say so—explaining why the Measure was so simple. He wants it in a hurry and for that reason possible complexities, I take it, have been left out. There are still one or two things which remain as question marks in the minds of members of local authorities. But on one big problem we have received an assurance. It is that the canal will continue to be used for the supply of industrial water. This means a great deal to Falkirk. A number of industries in the area use water from the canal, and it may well be that in future this use will increase.
The bridges have been the main cause of worry in Falkirk Burgh. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned them, the Camelon and the Bainsford bridges. They have been a serious worry to the town for a long time. They are wearing out and, when repairs are needed, the temporary closing of these bridges causes an enormous dislocation of traffic. Falkirk is becoming congested with traffic and even when the bridges were open, the Bainsford Bridge being a single-line bridge, it was not easy for traffic to get across. The cost of the necessary replacement, whatever might


have been decided about the canal, would, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, vary between £80,000 and £10,000. The decision to introduce this Bill and so enable a replacement to be made at the lower figure means a lot for my area.
I wish to ask the Minister about two points which might have been dealt with in the Bill. The first is the terms on which the responsibility for the renewing of the bridges could be taken over by the local authorities. I understand that the position of local authorities is protected by the Bridges Act, 1929. I hope that the Under-Secretary will explain what position local authorities will find themselves in.
I have one other question, to which I think I can guess the answer. However I should like to have it cleared up. Mention has been made of the terminals of the canal, particularly the one at Bowhill. I am concerned particularly with the terminal in my constituency. The timber basins there are mentioned in the Schedule, but they are one of the few things which are not discussed in the Bowes Report. A certain inference has been drawn in the area about what will be the use of the timber basins. It is not a vital question. Nowadays they have not the importance they used to have for seasoning the timber which came in at the docks. The basins are now used largely for storage. Seasoning is done by different techniques in this modern age. I do not speak with any authority on this, but I understand that that is the position. I should like to know what is likely to happen. I take it that the basins will remain from the point of view of sentiment, although they are put to comparatively limited use. This would be a good thing. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us what is intended.
In spite of the difficulties to fishermen, which I understand and sympathise with, and in spite of the fact that we seem to be, and in fact are, ending a means of transport which we have not been able to use fully, I welcome the Bill.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. William Yates: I speak as a canal lover educated in Scotland and also as an angler. There is one point which I want the Secretary of State to bear in mind for the future. He says that canals in general have lost their purpose for transport today. This may well be true, but technical developments are taking place in the use of boats which are capable of hovering. These may, far sooner than we think, come into active use in industry.
Lateral canals and lateral communications in the hands of the nation would be extremely valuable. Before the Secretary of State constructs any bridges or starts interfering with any of the lateral rights of passage across the country, I hope that he will consult his experts and ensure that the construction work which it is intended to carry out will not impede movement of craft of this nature in future. It is no use building bridges at a cost of £80,000 or £100,000 and then finding in ten or fifteen years' time that we have not the right to use the canal. This canal has a very important function to perform in the general movement of trade between Europe and the United States.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider this matter carefully. He should discuss with the Department concerned the future use of canals and the movement of craft of the type to which I have referred up and down the country. It will be no good in future years, after we have built bridges, saying that we have lost the right to use these channels of communication for new forms of craft and transport.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: I will not follow the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) in the remarks he directed to the Secretary of State. I have only two comments to make to the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris). First, I do not dissent from his general point of view and I see no alternative to accepting the Bill, though reluctantly and with some criticisms which I shall offer later.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nantwich should not be surprised that the Forth and Clyde Canal is not a haven for fishermen. Only young boys fish there who have a morbid attraction for the canal and for losing their lives. Anyway, no self-respecting fish would live in the Forth and Clyde Canal.
The Forth and Clyde Canal has very special and intimate significance to my constituents of Maryhill. The canal flows through Glasgow and through three of the most populated constituencies—Scotstoun, Maryhill and Woodside—to the Monkland Canal in the Central constituency. It is remarkable to recognise—and this is a point the Secretary of State should bear in mind—that it was industry that caused a canal to be brought there. Industry, in turn, formed new towns and, at that time, the new town of Maryhill was established.
Only three years after the completion of the canal the town got its name from the lady who was a superior resident of the district. Her name was Mary Hill—and thus the town was formed. But she laid down the condition that the new town should be built between the City of Glasgow beyond the estate of Gascombe. It is also remarkable to remember that the Survey of 1956 described the Stockingfield area of Maryhill as being near to Glasgow. Of course nowadays Maryhill is the City of Glasgow.
When the canal got to my constituency there was a shortage of money, so the Government of the day advanced £50,000. It was actually that money, given from the estates of nobles and others who had had the temerity to support the Rebellion of 1745. Thus the canal was completed down to Bowling.
The controversy over canals has raged for over a hundred years; not merely for one year, as was said in this case.

We have had various reports and many and varied recommendations. The Bowes Report, however, is the document on which I shall concentrate. That Report pointed out that the original canal was built before the railways and had transport as its main purpose. It also pointed out that if the function of transport fundamentally was now to cease, the other purposes, of providing water and so on, should be secondary, and the full picture should be looked at from that aspect.
Many of the problems are inherited from the 18th century and since canals then were only for transport purposes, and as they have outlived their usefulness, they should be looked at from that angle, as the Report pointed out. The Report states—and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) will agree—that the Transport Commission as the owners of canals have been saddled with a burden which properly should not be theirs.
In the building of the canal surrounding land was purchased and conditions were laid down regarding agricultural drainage. The British Transport Commission even today is responsible for agricultural drainage and, of course, this is a public body providing a hidden subsidy to farmers and agriculture. The Bowes Committee divided canals into three groups. Hon. Members who have read the Report will know that in the first group were put those which could continue to be navigated successfully, the second category was of those which could be improved, and the third category was the one into which redundant canals came. Included in that category was the Forth and Clyde Canal.
At one stage the Scottish Trades Union Congress was opposed to the closing of this canal. It thought, quite rightly, that on strategic grounds the canal, which ran right across the country and afforded a barrier, could under other circumstances become quite valuable. Those of us who can think back to those days think of the skill with which the canal was constructed and pay tribute to the men who executed their task with such great precision. In my constituency there were John Smeaton and Robert Whitworth, two engineers of that day who have been


commemorated in the streets named after them.
I come to the crux of the Bill. The Bowes Committee's Report, on which I am relying a great deal, in its remarks about canals which were to be classed as redundant, said that no plan had been in hand when these canals were being made. There was a need for each to be reviewed case by case, and they should be assessed according to their purposes. Although a canal might be valuable for ancillary functions such as providing water, the disadvantages sometimes outweighed the good properties. The Committee made the distinction quite clearly in paragraphs 127–8 when it posed the question, had these canals to be redeveloped or eliminated?
I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary, what is the attitude of the Government to this canal? I agree with the Bowes Report when it says that by redevelopment it means the retention of a waterway as a water channel adapted to serve primarily a purpose other than commercial navigation, although the Committee did not exclude that possibility, and responsibility for its maintenance and management is entrusted to some body, not necessarily the owners, capable of exercising those responsibilities.
A canal is closed to navigation, but what happens after that? As the Secretary of State has outlined, there are advantages in having the bridges and so on, but is the canal to lie open as an attraction for children throughout its length of 35 miles to paddle or play in and seize any loose flotsam and jetsam with great danger to public life and public health? Or do the Government agree—does the Bill mean that they have accepted the view—that the canal should be eliminated as a whole? That would mean that all the physical works would be disposed of for other uses and either the rights and liabilities of the owners would be extinguished in respect of this canal or those physical works would be transferred to another ownership. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson), I think that this Bill has come to us a little too suddenly. I am a little suspicious of what is motivating the Government in their anxiety to get this

Bill now when after repeated Questions by myself and my hon. Friends we have been met by a stonewalling attitude over the past seven or eight years.
Do the Government accept redevelopment, or does the Bill mean elimination? Is there to be positive action and never, as the Bowes Committee put it,
abandonment of a waterway to time and neglect"?
My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) is right: while the canal would be closed to navigation, are the weeds to be allowed to grow, giving children greater confidence to step on what can be a dangerous stretch of water and leading to their losing their lives?
There are legal intricacies, and the more I have probed into them the more complex they have seemed. The Bowes Report referred to chaotic and archaic legal provisions which make even the old canal companies carry out contracts for the provision of water, for example. I recognise that when a canal has reached a stage, which the Forth and Clyde Canal has, at which its continuous maintenance consumes more than it produces, its final disposal presents difficulties. To deal with it adequately may be so expensive that the relative advantages of elimination and of retention as a water channel are so finely balanced that almost any productive function may make it economic. While this is a relevant consideration, I hope that the Secretary of State will not make it all-important.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State—do the Government accept my definition about redevelopment and elimination? If they do, does not the Bill merely recognise what is already a fact? The canal in any case is used only by a declining number of transits. I do not dissent from the Secretary of State's figures. My own recent information is that there were ninety-four transits last year, and some of the ships may have made a double transit. If and when the Bill becomes an Act, whose responsibility will it be to maintain the banks of the canal, deal with the destruction of weeds, the lock-chambers, and the basins and footbridges? In my constituency there are nine locks on which the water drops from 156 feet above sea


level down to Bowling. Whose will be the responsibility to look after the canal and to keep it in a fit state?
What is the distinction between the Bill, which closes the canal for navigation, and the rights conferred on the British Transport Commission by a certificate of abandonment? I have here a Press report from the Scotsman of 27th June, 1959, which shows that when the Monkland Canal in Glasgow was closed to navigation it was abandoned by the issue of a certificate. That seems to have been the method then adopted. When Glasgow Corporation discussed how to deal with the menace of the canals to young children, and the fatal attraction which they offered them, the cost to the local authority to fill in only part of the Monkland Canal would have been £425,000, not £90,000, which the hon. Member for Nantwich said would have been the cost to his authority. I agree with the hon. Member that this is extremely costly.
I seem to sense that, through the Bill and the White Paper, the Government are unloading part of their responsibilities on to the local authorities. That can be borne out by an extract from a memorandum given to me by the Secretary of State only two years ago in connection with the Monkland Canal. It stated:
As regards the Glasgow section, the initiative in preparing a redevelopment scheme can in theory come from any interested party, but since no private developer has, so far as is known, shown any interest in acquiring the land, since the B.T.C. have no further use for it and since it is not required for the purposes of any Government Department, the possible uses, so far considered, all seem to fall within the responsibility of Glasgow Corporation.
By this Bill, will the same thing happen? I can tell the Secretary of State that there will be great resentment if that is the position. Whatever advantages follow from bridges and making it easier for traffic to flow, these problems will require elaboration.
I hope that the House will forgive my going on, but this is an opportunity for me to air some of the doubts while appreciating and accepting the principle of the Bill. The main burden of my remarks is to try to indicate that it does not go far enough to deal with the remaining problem. It simply recognises that there is nothing constructive

in the way of providing work, as it could be provided, by linking up an alternative route for the carriage of oil from Grangemouth to the west coast, or linking up with the Union Canal in Edinburgh as a possible alternative for some of the traffic which is creating trouble on the Glasgow-Edinburgh road.
I agree with the Bowes Report that
inaction in relation to disused waterways forfeits opportunities to remedy various evils and inconveniences.
When a canal is closed, who becomes responsible for building the bridges? To what extent are the local authority and the Transport Commission asked to meet the cost? Are the bridges then transferred to the highway authority. Does the Commission make any contribution? If so, how much?
The advantages are claimed that permanent structures would lead to traffic and that part of the canal would be incorporated in town planning in various places—for example, Coatbridge. These by themselves are all desirable objectives. The local authorities have for a long time been making complaints in this matter. There are the forty-one bridges of which the Secretary of State has spoken. I do not think it is generally known that, as a result of having those small bridges, the Transport Commission employs twenty lock and bridge keepers, who will now be dispensed with. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also confirm that the position of these men, small though they are in number, will be safeguarded and that the harsh state of redundancy will not come to them.
All this is commendable, but it is not the only feature. There is the public safety angle, about which the local authorities have, time and again, approached the Secretary concerning the provision of bulwarks and defences at the known danger spots where the canal flows through the city. Those of us who live, as I do, in my constituency are brought close to the poignant, tragic circumstances when a child's life is lost by drowning. The Bowes Committee itself received very strong representations on this matter.
Many of the women folk resident in Maryhill overlook the canal from their own homes, and have time and again expressed their anxiety about the dangers


prevalent for children. I am not convinced that waterways are inherently more dangerous than any other form of transport. I want to make that very clear. There are more people killed—and more children killed—in the streets than in the canals. There are more people killed even in their homes than in the canals. This, however, is not the answer when human emotion is aroused when a child loses his life in a canal, as those of us know who receive letters of the character of this one. They will understand just how strong these feelings are.
I have here a letter from a constituent who lost a boy, and if I quote two paragraphs that will be sufficient:
As you will see by the enclosed cutting, another young life is lost in your constituency, and what are you doing about it? I suppose, like I was, you are sitting smug because it does not affect you directly, but whereas there was little I could do there is much for you to do, and for God's sake do it now … Yesterday my boy was buried, and next week, next month, or next year there will be others like him, and other parents will have to go through the agony I am going through now, unless you, and others like you with the voice, the authority, do something.
That is the sort of letter one gets, and the local Press—rightly—use these incidents to remind the public that only continual pressure will move the authorities.
After Second Reading the Bill is to be committed to a Select Committee of eight Members, four to be nominated by the House and four by the Committee of Selection, for this is a hybrid Bill. It is one of the dangers the Bowes Committee referred to, the danger of dealing with these things by hybrid Bills instead of having all-in action dealing with the legal complexities in an all-in fashion. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, what procedure he is adopting to ensure that those who want to make objections to the Bill have their right to objection made known to them, and to make known to them the last date by which they can make their objections?
I cannot say for my own people that they would be inclined to accept the Bill, even as a first stage. For myself, I shall try to persuade them, but I recognise the shortcomings of what we are doing. We are closing the canal to navigation. I hope that the second stage will not be, as I suspect it will be, to

seek a certificate to abandon the canal and leave it, with no one apparently responsible for it, as an open cesspool and as an invitation to young people to play upon it, with the great possibility of further young lives being lost.

10.55 p.m.

Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: I follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) in his thought about safety and the responsibility for safety which will be residual after the Bill comes into force. I feel regret and sorrow that the canal is to be closed, but I see the force of my right hon. Friend's argument and I am sure that few will dissent from the facts which he has produced for us on the financial aspects of the Bill.
It would be wrong if I did not say a few words of farewell on behalf of many yachtsmen friends of mine who have worked their way through the canal in small craft. I doubt whether there are many in the House who have done so. I certainly did on a number of occasions before I came to the House where lack of time inhibits one from doing such things. I well remember the Mary-hill area and how hard it was to work small craft through the locks and to help to open bridges when there was not always a bridge-keeper there. I know that there will be yachtsmen in east and west Scotland who will be sore and sorry when the canal is closed to navigation.
I had intended to speak about safety but that aspect has been dealt with fully by the hon. Member for Maryhill. I remember passing through the canal a few days after a child had been drowned in the Maryhill area. I was deeply impressed by the sorrow and upsurge of feeling which that occasion aroused, but I also thought of the full passage of the canal and those long waste areas where there are no gates and where fishing would be an impossibility. I remember that the count of animals dead and floating in that passage of the canal—for we kept a record in the log book—was 21 dogs, 13 cats, one pig, one goat and I do not know how many chickens.
These dead animals are as great a danger to health as is the open canal a danger to the safety of children. I am sure that the people of Scotland who


live in areas abutting on to the canal would wish my right hon. Friend to give an assurance of the safety element which will be taken into account when the canal is closed to navigation. When the locks were being used and craft moved up and down there was some good effect, in that some of the dead creatures were removed at the lock ends. Not only do children go into the canal and get drowned, but they also go swimming there because there is nowhere else. If I were the parent of a child living in the area I should be horrified if this health aspect were not considered when the canal is closed to navigation. I am sorry from the point of view of yachting and recreation that the canal is to be closed, but I should be even more sorry if it were to be closed and left, as the hon. Member for Maryhill has said, an open ditch and a pollution in the nostrils of the people of Scotland.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. William Baxter: I very much regret having to bring a note of discord and disharmony into this happy band. It would appear that everyone looks upon this great asset to central Scotland, valued in the region of £50 million, as being a thing that should be cast away without very much consideration other than the two pages of this Bill which indicate to some extent the advantages of doing away with drawbridges and instituting ordinary standard bridges because it would be much cheaper to do so. This is a tragedy. There is a lack of imagination in the whole plan for central Scotland and even for the well-being of Scotland itself.
There is no apparent co-ordinated effort to make the best use of our natural resources. On the one side of Scotland we have the great industrial city of Glasgow and on the other the expanding small burgh of Grangemouth which, with its neighbours Falkirk and Larbert, is becoming almost a city in the making. Here is a great artery for the flow of goods to and from these two great centres, not only great centres of people, but great harbourages for boats which come from far and near. This canal is one of Scotland's great assets and if the Secretary of State and his advisers were to show a little more imagination, they would be trying to pump new blood into the utilisation of the canal.
Small and large barges can be made capable of carrying more than 100 tons of goods along the canal. Propelled by small diesel engines costing very little, they could be made to carry merchandise from one side of Scotland to the other, at the cost of a matter of a few pence. The whole of our approach to Scotland's problem is frustrated by this attitude of penny wise and pound foolish.
It is said that replacing the drawbridges with fixed bridges will ultimately save the taxpayer a good deal of money. When a flyover is required in London, or anywhere else in England and Wales, and the cost is £1 million or £1½ million. there is no hesitation about spending the money for the benefit of the trade and commerce of the area, but in Scotland we hesitate to use this great artery to the maximum possible extent. Scotland's economic and industrial planning is hamstrung by the number of small planning committees existing throughout the central belt.
Some years ago there were two great conceptions in the Abercrombie Committee and another whose name I cannot for the moment recall. The reports of those committees were cast aside and no major plan for the industrial development of central Scotland has been laid down. Instead, we have a patchwork quilt with no continuity of ideas. Now we have reached the stage of closing down the Forth and Clyde Canal with its great potential for the trade and commerce of Scotland and which, with a little ingenuity, could be made to work effectively for the general good of Scotland.
I am one hon. Member in a large gathering and I may be alone in deprecating this closure.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Oh, no.

Mr. Baxter: It is true that certain local authorities are very keen to have it closed, but they are looking to their immediate advantage, which is to do away with the cost of looking after the bridges. If the Secretary of State went into the cost of providing new bridges for the old ones over the canals, he would find that it would not be so very costly bearing in mind the future uses that I have mentioned.
I may be regarded as an interested party, because I happen to be the owner of the land on which the Townhead Reservoir is situated. It is that reservoir which feeds the Forth and Clyde Canal; without it there would be no canal. So I declare my interest.
The Bill lacks certain things. For instance, what is to be done about the maintenance of the reservoir? Some of my colleagues have asked what is to be done about the maintenance of the Forth and Clyde Canal. The Secretary of State said that the canal will be used for carrying water for industry in Grangemouth and Glasgow, as at present. It is not very wise to continue this open sewer, as it will ultimately become, to carry industrial water to Grangemouth and Glasgow.
I suggest that the water should be piped to those industrial users and that the Forth and Clyde Canal should then be filled in, especially as it is now being done away with anyway. It may be argued that at the moment it is a catchment area for water from various hills. But anyone who knows the geography of the area knows that it need not be so used. Down at Kelvinhead the River Bonny flows one way to the Carron and then into the Forth and the River Kelvin goes the other way, and the shedding of the water actually takes place at a distance between these two seats.
Consequently, there would be no problem about the catchment of the water that at present goes into the canal. It would be much better if the water went into the River Bonny and the River Kelvin for the simple reason that it would help to purify the rivers. At present they are not pure enough for the fish for which the anglers want to fish. They used to be great fishing rivers, containing not only trout but salmon. The great Forth and the Kelvin have been wasted because of pollution.
If the canal were then filled in, it would obviate the problem of children being drowned in it.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: It is important that we should appreciate that the cost of filling in, as an hon. Member opposite has clearly indicated, would be absolutely enormous. The filling in of 35 miles, or even 20 miles, of the canal

would result in a most tremendous bill. I do not think one would find anybody, local authority or the State, in a position to meet it.

Mr. Baxter: I live fairly near Kilsyth, and in the centre of it are most unsightly bings, and they could be cleared and used for the purpose. We cannot get industry into Kilsyth because we have no sites for it. If the bings were cleared, land would be brought into use for industry, and we should get a return on the money spent.
This is a case of penny wise and pound foolish. If the canal is to be closed, it should be filled in. Let us have the job done properly. If it is to be retained, the transport system in the area should be reorganised to enable it to be used to the fullest possible extent.
We have neither one thing nor the other in the Bill. The canal is to be closed to shipping, but it is to be left open to become a sewer and, as the hon. Gentleman said, to become so contaminated by dead dogs and cats that the health of young people who swim there in the summer will be impaired. I implore the right hon. Gentleman to do one thing or the other in the Bill.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I cannot allow this event to pass without expressing a sense of regret that this canal is to be closed to navigation. It is seldom that I agree politically or in any other way with the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), but on this occasion I agree to some extent because both he and I were born, and spent the greater part of our lives, within a stone's throw of this canal.
I do not know about the hon. Gentleman, but I have quite a fondness for this canal. My hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) was wrong when he said that this canal had no amenity value. It is a beautiful canal, and one of the most beautiful views I know of is that from the house at present lived in by the hon. Gentleman.
I have known this canal all my life, both as a yachtsman and as an industrialist using it for commercial purposes. I have used it as a passenger


on a canal steamer, and for mucking about in small boats. From many points of view it would be a tragedy if the canal were closed, but here I must part company from the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire because I think that this canal has served its day and generation, and served it well.
One point which no hon. Member has mentioned is that the canal follows the line of Agricola's Wall. At one time it had alongside it a road which must have been almost the oldest road in Scotland. It was built because this is almost the most important route in Scotland. The road has disappeared, but about one hundred years after the construction of the canal there was built a railway line which still serves a useful purpose.
There has never been very much road development in that area. As hon. Members know, the road from Edinburgh to Glasgow via Falkirk is one of the most difficult roads in Scotland. It is being improved, and will remain in perpetuity very much over-burdened. I suggest that my right hon. Friend should carry on his consideration of this route, and see whether this canal provides an opportunity for the construction of a new route across Scotland. After all, we have here a strip of land from Glasgow, the greatest city in Scotland, to Grangemouth, which is rapidly becoming the greatest port in Scotland.

Mr. Willis: When the hon. Gentleman talks about Glasgow being the greatest city in Scotland, I take it that he means in size?

Mr. Hendry: Yes, in size. I am not talking about the capital. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a spur goes to the capital.
This strip of land has tremendous potential as a commercial route. As a canal it has served its day and generation, and I ask my right hon. Friend to consider carefully the possibility of converting it into a road. Knowing the geography of that part of Scotland extremely well, I can see the importance of it, and I think that there are great possibilities in that.
As for water supplies, I do not agree with the hon. Member for West Stirling-shire that the rivers could serve the

purpose, but it should not be impossible, from an engineering point of view, to pipe the water and at the same time build the road.

Mr. W. Baxter: I would point out that the rivers served the purpose before the canal was provided. The canal was built almost 200 years ago and the Townhead Reservoir, the first reservoir ever to be built in Scotland by Act of Parliament, got its water from the Kelvin and other rivers.

Mr. Hendry: What the hon Member says is true, but he will agree that the canal follows a rather different route, at a rather different level, and that there are industrial establishments which could not get their water from the rivers but which get it from the canal.

Mr. W. Yates: As an industrialist who knows Scotland, has my hon. Friend and other industrialists given consideration to the new movement of major fluids by pipeline, and the possible use of the canal route for major pipelines?

Mr. Hendry: I have considered that. If my hon. Friend knew the centre of Scotland as well as I do he would know that for at least thirty years there has been a pipeline along the line of the canal, and it is capable of development from that point of view.
I do not want to detain the House: I make an appeal to my right hon. Friend to consider that this is the most important commercial route across Scotland, and that the line of the canal and its site might be used for a roadway, not only for relieving the road along that route but the other roads east and west in Scotland.

11.17 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) summarised very succinctly most of the questions which have been touched on and developed by subsequent speakers. He thereby set the tone of the debate. Every hon. Member who has spoken, with various degrees of emphasis, has expressed a sense of sadness at the passing of this canal as a navigable waterway, with a history starting with Antoninus Pius, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) developed the more constructive aspect


of its history in relation to his own area, and perhaps its more financial aspect, its sequestration of funds from the 'Fortyfive. But he joined in recognising the necessity for the action proposed in the Bill.
I think it would be the wish of the House that I should answer the substance of questions put rather than discuss the general principle, which found acceptance as the result of my right hon. Friend's speech.
The hon. Member for Hamilton regretted that the canal was not put to use for transport, and suggested that more thought might have been given to its possible utilisation for through traffic of goods before a final decision was taken on the lines of the Bill. The arguments for and against that course were set out in paragraph 196 of the Bowes Report. After surveying the various suggestions which have been touched on in this debate the Committee came to the conclusion that there was no real prospect of traffic being economically conveyed. The Committee's reasons for reaching that conclusion are set out in that paragraph.
The hon. Member for Hamilton also mentioned the very regrettable fact, which we all accept, that this involves a sacrifice to the fishing industry. He asked for a measure of the degree of sacrifice. I am afraid it is not possible to state this with any precision. It depends on the weather, on the movements of the fish, and on the unpredictable decisions skippers would take as to what course to follow. Hon. Members have been given figures of the number of boats. They have shown a tendency to decline, but statistics cannot be read very accurately because they fluctuate with changing fishing conditions from year to year. I cannot say more than that there has been a tendency to decline. One can expect the tendency to develop further with the increase in the number of larger boats on the east coast grounds. The hon. Member asked how long the passage took. Again, I can only make a broad average. It takes about four days on the round passage for a boat having to go round by the Caledonian Canal.
The hon. Member for Hamilton, my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich

(Mr. Grant-Ferris) and the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) were all concerned with terminal problems. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs was the only east-coast terminal worrier. He asked about the timber basins. The position there will remain unchanged. I can assure him that access to the basins will still be available. Equally on the west coast, as my right hon. Friend said in opening, access to the yacht basin at Bowling, which is now used by a very wide variety of small craft, will be maintained. There are interesting prospects of further development. I can say no more than that at this stage, except that it is under consideration. What has been said will certainly be brought to the notice of the Commission, which is looking into the possibility of further development on these lines.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Will the Commission be legally bound still to maintain the basin, or is it only a directive? If it is not to be legally bound, perhaps my right hon. Friend will consider moving an Amendment in Committee to make it obligatory on the Commission to maintain the basin.

Mr. Brooman-White: I should want notice before replying categorically on the exact legal extent of the Commission's obligations regarding access to the basin. The Commission has expressed its intention of maintaining it and is certainly looking into the question of developing it.
The main substance of the misgivings which have been expressed turned on the expression "open sewer" used by the hon. Member for Hamilton. Another view of the canal was taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). He spoke of its beauty in some areas. Sewer or not, it will be no more "sewery" as a result of the Bill. The essential fact about the Bill is that it removes no obligation at present resting on the Commission, except the obligation to keep the canal open for free traffic. I say this in answer to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Maryhill. All the other obligations—maintenance of the banks, keeping the canal from being choked by weeds, maintaining adjacent land against


dangers of flooding, etc.—remain untouched by the Bill.

Mr. W. Baxter: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House a measure of the estimated cost of maintaining the Forth and Clyde Canal now that it is not to be used by boats? What is the estimated revenue from water?

Mr. Brooman-White: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that those figures were given by my right hon. Friend. I have not got them on the tip of my tongue. I ask for aid if the hon. Member wishes to press the point.

Mr. W. Baxter: I have asked a simple question. What is the estimated revenue from the sale of water for industrial purposes? What is the estimated cost of maintaining the canal now that it is not to be used by ships?

Mr. Brooman-White: The 1960 receipts were: water, £23,000; tolls and other incidental receipts, £3,000; rent, £7,000; other receipts, £4,000. The working costs were £77,000. That is; about £37,000 receipts and £77,000 working costs.

Mr. Willis: What is the saving?

Mr. Brooman-White: I must continue. That calculation was given by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Willis: Mr. Willis rose—

Mr. Brooman-White: I do not have the figure on the tip of my tongue and I do not want to guess in case I mislead hon. Members. The essential factor is not the saving of running costs but the saving on future development of bridges.
Regarding bridges, the hon. Gentleman for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs asked about the transfer of responsibility. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no transfer unless it is mutually agreed between the local authorities and the highway authority, who are at present responsible for the bridges. It may be that the B.T.C. and the Glasgow Corporation, and others, have a responsibility for them. The local authorities have powers to take over if they wish, but they have no obligation to take over unless they agree a satisfactory settlement.
The question of safety weighed understandably heavily in the mind of

the hon. Gentleman the Member for Maryhill, who rightly said that a canal is no greater risk than a busy thoroughfare. The only real answer is in the accumulative effort being made by local authorities, education authorities and, above all, by parents to keep children away from these dangerous places. Several hon. Members have spoken on this topic and we appreciate all the work that is being done in this safety field. It is to be hoped that the raising of this matter today will bring the matter further home to all those concerned. The answer, primarily, lies in education. The statistics show that a canal is no more dangerous than a busy thoroughfare and it is only by the growing awareness of the public that the answer will be found.
The hon. Member for Maryhill also asked about the future of the canal. This point was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson). The closure to navigation will be no bar whatever to considering a comprehensive scheme for redeveloping the waterway later. Indeed, it will assist rather than hamper such a scheme because the authorities concerned have been reluctant to make detailed plans until the future of the canal was known.
When the question of closure was referred to the Inland Waterways' Development Committee that body said that it was unable to comment as no redevelopment proposals had been put to it. The B.T.C. indicated at that time that the preparation of a comprehensive scheme would take several years. In view of the urgency of the matter, as my right hon. Friend has explained, it was decided that the problem could not wait for this long-term consideration and that the various possibilities of the future use of the canal should be left to the Commission for future consideration. But, in the meantime, it was urgent and essential for this Measure to be passed so that the immediate needs of bridge development could be made.
The final point made by the hon. Member for Maryhill was on the question of notices required for the further stages of the Bill. The various notices required by Standing Orders were published in the Gazettes, the Glasgow Herald, the Scotsman and other newspapers on the introduction of the Bill at the beginning of November. The statutory drill and


moves required by Standing Orders have been gone through. It will be open for any representations or objections to be made at a later stage. I hope that what I have said will be sufficient to satisfy hon. Members who have asked questions and that the Bill will be given a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Ordered,
That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Eight Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection.

Ordered,
That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

(a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the twenty-second day of December, nineteen hundred and sixty-one, and
(b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the said Committee,
being a Petition in which the Petitioners have prayed to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.

Ordered,
That if no such Petition as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the Order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Ordered,
That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them.

Ordered,
That Three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Maclay.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further arrangements for the giving of financial assistance for the provision and improvement of housing accommodation in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise:—
A. (1) The payment out of money provided by Parliament of annual Exchequer subsidies, or equivalent payments, in respect of every new house provided by—

(a) a local authority, or
(b) a development corporation, or
(c) a housing association in pursuance of arrangements made with a local authority or the Secretary of State, or
(d) the Scottish Special Housing Association in the circumstances specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section twenty-three of the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957,
in accordance with proposals approved by the Secretary of State.
(2) The payment out of money provided by Parliament of such sums as may be required to enable the Secretary of State—

(a) to make to any housing association, for a period not exceeding sixty years, annual payments in respect of arrangements made between him and the association for the provision of housing accommodation by the conversion or improvement of existing houses or by the conversion of other buildings, being payments equal to three-quarters, or in relation to housing accommodation situated in the Highlands and Islands seven-eighths, of the annual loss determined by the Secretary of State to be likely to be incurred by the association in carrying out the arrangements;
(b) to make to the Scottish Special Housing Association, with the approval of the Treasury, such payments (hereafter in this sub-paragraph referred to as "deficiency payments") as he may determine in respect of any excess in any year of the total net expenditure (as calculated in accordance with rules made by the Secretary of State) incurred by the Association in the provision of housing accommodation over the sum of the payments made to them under section ninety-three of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, section twenty-three of the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957, and any provision of the said Act of the present Session (other than a provision for the making of deficiency payments);
(c) to acquire, with the approval of the Treasury, shares in any authorised society within the meaning of the Housing Act, 1914; and
(d) to pay into the Exchequer the sums authorised to be so paid under paragraph (b) of head E hereof.
B.—(1) The issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be required for the purpose of making advances—

(a) to housing associations (being associations registered under the Industrial and


Provident Societies Act, 1893), providing housing accommodation for letting.
(b) to the Scottish Special Housing Association for the purpose of—

(i) enabling or assisting the provision of housing accommodation by that Association.
(ii) meeting expenditure incurred by that Association in the provision of housing accommodation for letting,
(iii) enabling or assisting that Association to purchase the assets of housing societies or trusts,
so however that the advances referred to in sub-paragraph (a) of this head shall not exceed the aggregate sum of three million pounds, and that the aggregate amount of the advances referred to in sub-paragraph (b) of this head, together with any advances made under subsection (1) of section ninety-four of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, shall not exceed one hundred and ten million pounds.
(2) The borrowing in any manner authorised under the National Loans Act, 1939, and payment into the Exchequer of any money needed for providing or replacing such sums as may be issued as aforesaid, and the repayment into the Exchequer, with interest, of any such sums and their re-issue out of the Consolidated Fund.
C. The payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums becoming so payable in consequence of amending existing enactments as follows:—

(a) the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950:

(i) the extension of the definition of a hostel in respect of which contributions are payable by the Secretary of State;
(ii) the extension of the Secretary of State's power to make contributions for hostels so as to include hostels provided by housing associations under arrangements made with the Secretary of State;
(iii) the extension of the Secretary of State's power to make contributions in respect of building experiments;
(iv) the extension of the Secretary of State's power to contribute to the expenses of a central association for housing associations;
(b) the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957: the restriction to houses completed after the commencement of that Act of the prohibition of the making to the Scottish Special Housing Association of payments under section ninety-three of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, in respect of houses provided by them.
D. The payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable otherwise than as aforesaid to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums required or authorised under any other Act to be so paid.
E. The payment into the Exchequer, on the winding up of any housing society or trust in which the Secretary of State owns (at the

commencement of the winding up) all the shares, of—

(a) any sum received by the Secretary of State on the winding up;
(b) a sum equal to the excess, if any, of—

(i) any amount outstanding, as at the commencement of the winding up of the society or trust, of any advances made to the society or trust by any government department, over
(ii) any amount received by the Secretary of State on the winding up;
and the payment into the Exchequer of any sum received otherwise than as aforesaid by the Secretary of State by virtue of the said Act of the present Session.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — GLENROTHES (FUTURE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wakefield.]

11.32 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: The reason I choose to raise the question of the future of Glenrothes is the evidence that I have received of the anxiety in the town consequent on the recent announcements of pit closures in the very near future, and in particular the effects of the announcement in respect of the Rothes pit for which the new town was originally designated.
The Rothes pit currently employs 849 men, and 400 will be declared redundant. The National Coal Board has given an undertaking that most of them will be placed in neighbouring pits, but the anxiety that arises is concerned with the uncertainty of the pits to which these men will go. The men are concerned about the future of Bowhill and King-lassie pits and even the Seafield pit. Men employed in these pits are concerned about their future. Those who live in Glenrothes are not currently employed at the Rothes pit, but at Bowhill, Kinglassie and elsewhere. If those pits are closed, I estimate that the future of 2,000 to 3,000 in Glenrothes may be adversely affected.
I was rather surprised, therefore when, in answer to a Question on 29th November, the Secretary of State said he was not aware of any general anxiety about the future of the town and that certainly none was felt for the future by the Development Corporation. I was glad to hear that, but I do not think that the


Development Corporation can be in very close contact with the people at Glenrothes for it to have given that information to the right hon. Gentleman.
In any case, I want to examine the reason for that optimism in a little more detail. I think that it is based on two propositions—first, that the town is now concerned more with overspill from Glasgow, with which it entered into an agreement two years ago, and secondly, the stimulation of further industrial growth in the future. If we take the first proposition, that of overspill from Glasgow, the results so far do not give much ground for believing that this will solve the problem of Glenrothes or that of Glasgow. In paragraph 89 of the Development Corporation's Annual Report for the year ended 31st March, 1961, it is reported that
only 51 families have been housed under the Overspill Agreement".
That is not a very great contribution to the problems either of Glenrothes or of Glasgow.
The Report goes on to say that the future influx from Glasgow will depend on the securing of employment in Glenrothes and the surrounding area. The question which I want to put to the Under-Secretary of State is this: has the announcement about the future development of the mining industry in Fife had any adverse effect on the number of applications coming from Glasgow people who want to go to the Fife area? The Corporation's Annual Report says in paragraph 4:
The Local Employment Act does not contain any benefits which have proved to be of material advantage to the securing of new industries in Glenrothes, despite the fact that the Act permits assistance to be given to places which have overspill agreements with development districts.
Indeed, Glenrothes is at a disadvantage in this respect compared with other new towns and other development districts. In my view and that of the Corporation, Glenrothes should be able to compete with those areas on equal terms, and I think that this is more essential than ever now that the future of the mining industry is in the balance and when the effects of the Local Employment Act have been seen to have given very little impetus to industrial development in the town.
I want to be very careful not to cry stinking fish about the future of the town. I believe that it has a great deal to offer to industrialists. It has first-class sites, fully serviced, and it has top-quality labour, both male and female. I have talked to some of the managers of the American firms which have come there, and they have paid great compliments to the quality of the labour which they have found in Fife. They have extremely good access to surrounding areas. There are houses available for all classes of labour, the educational facilities are excellent, and when the Forth Road bridge is completed in 1963, I think that the transport facilities to the area will be even better than they are now.
On the other hand, as the Annual Report of the Corporation points out, there are difficulties in the way. It mentions, for instance, cost of land and cost of the purchase or rent of a factory as inducements to offer to industrialists to move to new towns.
The other question I would ask the hon. Gentleman is, what are the Government prepared to do towards helping to solve some of these difficulties? The Report said:
The problem of inducements to industrialists is currently under examination by your Department.
I should be glad if the Under-Secretary would give an answer to that question put in the Report, as to the consideration which the Government are giving to further inducements to industrialists to come to Glenrothes. I hope he will show more imagination than the Board of Trade has shown up to now. Whenever one asks questions of Ministers of that Department, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) did the other night in her Adjournment debate, one gets generalities, such as this which I got on 16th November, that the Board will continue
to steer new industry to … any area in which high and persistent unemployment exists or is to be expected."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 79.]
That phrase was used as an answer to my Question asking whether Glenrothes would be scheduled as a development district. Presumably it is thought that the rate of unemployment is not sufficiently high for it to be scheduled.
But the Toothill recommendations conflict with the view of the Board of Trade. The third recommendation in that Report says:
The immediate relief of unemployment should not be the only factor in giving assistance. The build up of industrial complexes and centres which offer prospects of becoming zones of growth should be one of the principal aims of policy.
It went, in page 154, paragraph 2008, to say:
We recommend that the provisions"—
of the Local Employment Act—
should apply in full measure not only to the present development districts but also"—
and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to note these words—
to the new towns in Scotland and to all Glasgow overspill reception areas. In this way it would be possible to encourage expansion in promising centres previously eligible only on a restricted basis, and the overspill operation would be furthered more surely if with less apparent directness.
On page 142 the suggestion is made that development corporations should
have a freer hand in the negotiation of rents
for factory space. It is true that temporary rent abatements have recently been authorised by the Government, and I hope this policy will be pursued with increasing vigour now that suddenly Glenrothes finds itself in somewhat more difficulty since the decision on the colliery was taken.
The Toothill Committee also had something to say about advance factories, and in paragraph 1814 said that the new towns have been successful in providing and letting advance factories. It went on to say that they have:
a useful part to play in areas where other factors indicate a likelihood of industrial growth.
In paragraph 20.30, the Committee said that
a sound contribution can be made to regional development by the building of advance factories provided that they are located at promising points of growth likely to be attractive to industrialists.
One would think that the Toothill Committee had been reading all the propaganda issued by the Labour Party over the last several years. The Toothill Committee, composed, as it was, mainly of industrialists, at least has been converted so far to our point of view. I believe that Glenrothes is one of those

"promising points of growth" to which the Committee referred.
The Corporation says in its Report that the policy of building advance factories was vindicated in the town itself in 1960, because the fact that it had built an advance factory was the reason for the success in attracting a United States firm, Cessna Industrial Products, Ltd., a subsidiary of Cessna Aircraft Company, Ltd., of Hutchinson, Kansas. Forty men, I understand, are to be employed. There is 12,000 sq. ft. of production space and 3,000 sq. ft. of office accommodation. It is a small firm but, I believe, a progressive one. If we can get more firms like this with the help of the Government, everybody will be highly delighted.
The Development Corporation, I understand, has submitted a programme for advance building of standard factories. The first two units, of 13,000 and 21,000 sq. ft. are planned to start next June and they await the approval of the Department. I should be glad if the Under-Secretary would make a statement on this point also.
Despite the anxiety which has undoubtedly been generated by the pit closures, I do not want to be pessimistic about the future, nor am I; but it is now more imperative than ever for the Government to show more imagination, more energy and more initiative in tackling at one and the same time the problem of Glasgow's overspill and the problem of more speedy industrial development in Glenrothes.
I know that there are developers waiting to go ahead in the new town centre. They have seen me and have told me that they want to invest £¼ million in the centre of the new town, but they are hesitant and doubtful whether that would be a sound investment. I hope very much that the Under-Secretary, when he answers the debate, will say things tonight that will remove all doubt from their minds and from the minds of the people in the town.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: In view of the time factor, my intervention will of necessity be extremely brief. I am, however, very much concerned, as the Member for the neighbouring constituency, that we should


have a strong and healthy town in Glenrothes. The future of Glenrothes concerns the town of Kirkcaldy and the surrounding district very much.
In view of the fact that only yesterday one of the leading Scottish Sunday papers described today as "black Monday" because of the rail closures, I venture to suggest that if Rothes pit should eventually be closed we will have a black day in Fife. It is claimed that some of the men who are declared redundant will be employed in some of the neighbouring pits, some, perhaps in my constituency. Those pits may then well become uneconomic and be threatened because of the statement made by the Minister of Power some weeks ago. Therefore, we are very much concerned that something should be done by the Government to ensure the future prosperity of Glenrothes.
I should like to refer briefly to the stop-and-go policy which has been operating in Glenrothes for some time, largely at the Government's behest. In 1959 it was stated that between 1960 and 1964 Glenrothes would be building about 800 houses a year. Then in November, 1960, the estimate was revised, when it was declared that in view of a change of policy approximately 400 houses per year would be built. It was intended in the original estimate to build about 400 houses in each six-monthly period, but the facts are that in the six months to April this year only 110 houses were completed in Glenrothes against a programme of 400 for the full year, and in the first nine months of 1961 a total of only 202 houses have been completed, or considerably less than even the revised programme.
The result of all this has completely upset the calculations of the education authority in Fife, which has the proud record of being the only authority in the country to have provided new towns with full-time education. Though it has always provided schools in advance of growing populations in the new towns, a new primary school will be opened in August with only 100 primary pupils. Another planned school will not be started, and a high school which ought to have been required in 1962 according to the figures will now be required only in 1964 or even later.
Glenrothes, despite some of the announcements from Government sources, should not be regarded as the Cinderella of Britain's new towns. As paragraph 99 of the Report on new towns states:
The difficulties under which the Corporation work in comparison with other areas, cannot, however, be too heavily stressed, and it is vital that some of these unnecessary handicaps be removed without delay.
These are the handicaps to which my hon. Friend has referred. I support him strongly in his plea for an advance factory so that we may have a prosperous and healthy town in Glenrothes in the future.

11.52 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): When I first learned that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) wanted a debate on the future of Glenrothes I was a little surprised. Last Wednesday, as he pointed out, he asked a Question about Glenrothes in which he asked my right hon. Friend
. .whether he will give an assurance that the future development of the town will not be retarded.
In his reply my right hon. Friend said:
There is thus no reason for expecting the pit closures to retard the development of the town."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November 1961, Vol. 650, c. 64–5.]
That was a pretty definite answer and I cannot improve on the confidence which it has shown my right hon. Friend to possess in the future of the town. Our attitude is more than optimism—the word which the hon. Member for Fife, West used—it is confidence.
In the time that remains I will try to expand a little upon the reasons which have led us to take this confident view of the town's development. In doing so I hope I may remove any doubts or misunderstandings that may still exist about Glenrothes or its function as a general purpose new town.
The basic fact to get hold of, which may have become obscured, is that Glenrothes was never conceived of as being a purely mining town. Right from the beginning it was the Government's intention that the new town should have a varied industrial structure.
In Glenrothes the Government's aim has been to carry out on a small scale


the policy of diversification of industry exemplified by the new developments at Bathgate, Ravenscraig and Linwood which have had a stimulating effect on the whole Scottish economy. It is perfectly true that at one time it was envisaged that in Glenrothes those engaged on mining work might amount to one person in every four or five of the total employed population. By 1959, however, it was clear, owing to the reorganisation of the coal industry in Fife, that there would be only a fairly small inward movement of miners into the new town from other parts of Scotland. The National Coal Board then stated that its total requirement for this purpose would not be more than about fifty houses per annum. Because of this decline—and it occurred two years ago—in the Coal Board's requirement, my right hon. Friend then wrote to the Chairman of the Development Corporation saying:
I hope the new town will continue to make an increasingly important contribution to Glasgow's problems.
He went on—and this is the really important part of the letter—to say:
We are not contemplating that it should be necessary … to plan for any reduction in the ultimate scale of the housing and other developments which you have in mind.
That was the position two years ago and it remains the position today.
My right hon. Friend is most anxious that it should be clearly understood that recent developments in the coal industry have made no difference to the planned future prospects of the town. Such change of emphasis as was necessary took place two years ago, and the course of events since 1959 has amply fulfilled the confidence my right hon. Friend then expressed in the town's growth potential.
It would, therefore, be a very great disservice, as the hon. Member himself recognised, not only to Glenrothes, but to the whole of Fife, if any suggestion were made that the new town was in danger of becoming a problem area because of pit closures. I hope that both the hon. Member for Fife, West and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) will do their best to combat any inaccurate and ill-informed rumours of this sort. Of course we realise that the stoppage of operations at Rothes pit must have come as a great blow to those engaged in the mining industry, but the

effect on Glenrothes itself is slight. Only 300 of the men working at Rothes actually live in Glenrothes and I understand that the majority of those affected by the stoppage of coal cutting will be found work at other pits.
I entirely appreciate that it is not enough to provide these men with work and that what those who are concerned with the healthy development of the new town want to know is whether other jobs will be coming to Glenrothes which will compensate for the loss of the mining jobs. What they want to know is whether there will be a net increase in the employment potential in the new town which will make Glenrothes a thriving industrial area.
I am glad to be able to say that the picture of industrial development is encouraging and that prospects are even better today than they were a year ago. At the moment more than 200 jobs are in prospect from new industrial building and several hundred other jobs will result if a number of firms go ahead with projects which they are now actively contemplating.
Hon. Members will note that these projects alone, quite apart from any new incoming developments, will by themselves more than make good the loss due to the contraction in the coal mining industry. But that is not all. The Development Corporation has received eleven inquiries from firms interested in the newly serviced south industrial area. The advance factories have not only been approved, but are in course of construction and inquiries about them are already being made.
All this is most encouraging and it would not justify the listing of Glenrothes itself as a development district under the Local Employment Act, which the hon. Member suggested might be a means of speeding development. An area can be listed as a development district only when there is a high level of unemployment. That does not apply to Glenrothes or to the area surrounding it. Although Glenrothes itself may not be a development district, firms which recruit a substantial number of their workers from a development district, either locally or from Glasgow, will get assistance in establishing themselves under the Local Employment Act, and to that extent Glenrothes benefits from the


inducements which the hon. Member mentioned.
The hon. Member referred also to the Toothill Report. The Government have taken a great interest in the publication of this Report and are considering its recommendations. I cannot go further than that now.
The hon. Member also asked about housing and overspill. The number of houses built over the last couple of years has been between 300 and 350. With regard to overspill, the hon. Gentleman may not appreciate that that in a way is a technical category; but including the numbers housed in overspill, a total of 250 families from Glasgow, or a population in excess of about 1,000, have been housed. There is also evidence of an increase in the number of families moving from Glasgow, and the industrial selection machinery can recruit from Glasgow the skilled workers who are required for incoming industry.
The hon. Member asked about the prospects for the town centre. Again, the outlook is promising. The rents charged are in line with those which obtain at other new towns, and certainly in relation to the sums invested in the layout and servicing of the town centre, the rents being asked are modest.
The best advice that I can give the hon. Gentleman to pass on to his perhaps rather faint-hearted friends is the words of the well-known hymn:
Come, labour on. Away with gloomy doubts and faithless fear.
For our part, looking ahead, we regard Glenrothes as an area of steady and perhaps even rapid growth. It has some of the finest industrial sites in Eastern Scotland. It is a pleasant and

attractive town, with good housing and shopping facilities—as I know, because I have been there.
The Development Corporation has made itself known for the speed and efficiency with which it can erect factories, and can provide—with the cooperation of the local authorities—services required for industrialists. It has been particularly successful in attracting some of the new science-based industries from America. In addition to all this, there is the new Forth Road Bridge, which, when completed, will bring much improved road communication with the south.
Far from being gloomy, therefore, the outlook for Glenrothes is, I believe, bright. Its future has not depended, and does not depend, upon the fortunes of the coal-mining industry. That cannot be over-emphasised. What its future depends upon is the new scientific industries. Already success in attracting these is making Glenrothes a thriving community. Because it can call on skilled workers from Glasgow, through overspill and in other ways, the omens are good for the future development and prosperity of the town. In conclusion, I hope that in expanding upon what my right hon. Friend said in answer to the hon. Member's Question last Wednesday I have given good grounds for our confidence in the future of Glenrothes, and—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at two minutes past Twelve o'clock.